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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, the mandatory email-link click before any provider sees the enquiry, the disclosure that details go to up to three contractors who contact the person directly, and the ability to stop further sharing. That is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 two-step flow before the consent text. It is dense but each sentence carries operational information; the verbatim consent string is largely duplicated from the schema's consent description, which is the one piece of redundancy.

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 stating what Step 1 returns and what the person receives after Step 2. Combined with the 100%-covered schema and the pointer to enquiry_fields, an agent has everything needed to invoke both calls correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'answers' must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that consent=true is the gating condition, and that 'confirmation' is the token returned by Step 1 after human approval — clarifying the same call's dual role.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Submits an enquiry to California HVAC Replacement Cost') plus an immediate scope boundary: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' This distinguishes it from a purchase/quote tool and from the sibling read-only tools enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields.

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?

The description lays out the exact when: Step 1 with answers+consent=true to validate, Step 2 only if the person agrees, with the same answers plus the confirmation token. It states the precondition for the second call explicitly, 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.