Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges it: it states what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), what the agent must do with it (show it to the person), that submission triggers an email requiring a click before any provider sees the data, and that details go to up to three chosen firms who may contact the person directly. That is unusually rich downstream-effect disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the key differentiator and then organized as Step 1/Step 2, which is easy to follow. It is on the long side because the full consent sentence is repeated verbatim from the schema's consent description, which is the one element that does not earn its place twice.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover returns and side effects — and it does: return values, the consent artifact, the confirmation token, and the email-verification gate. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or explain it to the user is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; however the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by tying `answers` to field keys from enquiry_fields and by explaining the workflow role of `confirmation` (only supplied on step 2 after approval). The only redundancy is re-quoting the consent text already present in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Submits an enquiry to Boat Value Calculator') and immediately scopes it negatively ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which cleanly separates it from calculate, enquiry_fields and the describe siblings. An agent can pick this tool without inspecting any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers+consent=true, then step 2 only if the person agrees, re-sending the same answers plus the confirmation token. The conditional gating ('only if the person agrees') and the ordering are fully specified, leaving nothing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.