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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 is what actually submits, that an email with a click-through link gates provider visibility, and that up to three firms will receive the contact details. This is exactly the side-effect information an agent needs before invoking a mutation.

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 purpose and the 'not a purchase' caveat, then sequenced by step, which is the right structure. It is somewhat long and repeats the consent definition that already appears in the schema's consent property description, though quoting the exact consent text is arguably necessary for display to the person.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after step 2 (email with a mandatory click-through before providers see anything). For a two-step consent-gated tool with a nested answers object, this is complete enough to drive correct invocation.

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, but the description adds real value: it ties 'answers' to the enquiry_fields tool ('keyed by field key from enquiry_fields'), clarifies that consent=true is a legal attestation with the exact wording to show the person, and explains that confirmation is the token returned by step 1 rather than an arbitrary string.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Business Value Now') and immediately distinguishes itself from what an agent might assume it is ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The two-step framing further separates it from the read-only checker_* and enquiry_* siblings.

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?

Explicitly prescribes when to call each step: step 1 with answers + consent=true, step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. It also states the precondition that the person must approve the summary before proceeding, 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.