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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does so thoroughly. It reveals that the tool is two-staged, that validation produces an intermediate summary, that a confirmation token is needed for final submission, and that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry. It also discloses the exact consent text, eliminating ambiguity about what 'consent' means.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose and the crucial 'not a purchase' caveat, then organizes the two-step flow clearly. The quoted consent line is necessary verbatim text, not padding.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains all three parameters, the two required invocation patterns, the intermediate output (summary, consent line, token), and the post-submission email behavior. An agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly and avoid the common mistake of treating it as a single-step purchase.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant semantic value beyond the raw schema. It explains that answers must be keyed by enquiry_fields keys, that consent must reflect the exact quoted agreement, and that confirmation is the token returned from Step 1 and reused in Step 2. These details transform the parameter names from generic placeholders into a coherent workflow.

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 and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to California Solar Cost Calculator.' It immediately distinguishes itself from related actions with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote,' and clearly frames the tool as a two-step human-provider submission process. This separates it from sibling tools like calculate or enquiry_describe without ambiguity.

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 gives explicit step-by-step usage instructions: Step 1 requires answers plus consent=true and returns a summary and confirmation token; Step 2 is only invoked if the person agrees and requires the same answers, consent=true, and the confirmation token. It also references enquiry_fields for the answer keys, providing concrete orientation to the sibling tool that supplies the required field structure.

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