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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It reveals the two-step validation-and-submit flow, the consent wording, the requirement to display the summary, and the email link requirement before providers see the enquiry. It also warns that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, which prevents false expectations.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place because the tool has a critical consent and two-step workflow. It is front-loaded with the key warning ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and organized into clear Step 1 and Step 2 instructions.

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 two-step human-enquiry tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete. It explains what step 1 returns, what to show the person, the exact consent line, what to pass in step 2, and what happens after submission. Nothing essential is left for the agent to guess.

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 critical semantic meaning beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, the confirmation token comes from step 1 after approval, and consent must equal the exact quoted consent line. This is exactly the workflow knowledge an agent needs to populate parameters correctly.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Charter vs Own' and immediately distinguishes what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and separates it from purchase or quoting tools.

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 guidance: call once to validate and receive a summary/token, show the person the summary, and call again only if they agree. It also says the enquiry is not submitted until the confirmation token is provided and the email link is clicked, which clarifies when the tool should and should not be invoked. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the workflow guidance is strong enough to avoid misuse.

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