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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains validation, return values (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the required confirmation step, email delivery, and the click-link requirement before providers see the enquiry. It even quotes the exact consent line. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 exclusions, then organizes the two-step process in a clear, numbered structure. No fluff or redundant filler exists, despite the length being justified by the complexity of the flow.

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?

Given the complexity of a two-step consent-based submission, the description covers everything an agent needs: preconditions, step behaviors, return values, user interaction required between steps, and post-submission effects. There is no output schema, but the description compensates by explaining what step 1 returns and what the person experiences.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that answers should be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields and by explaining the temporal relationship of the confirmation token across the two steps. It could have added more detail about expected answer structures, but it does improve on 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 states a specific verb ('submits an enquiry'), a specific resource ('Cheap 409A'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also clearly outlines the two-step nature of the operation, which differentiates it from sibling tools like compare_options or enquiry_describe.

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 provides explicit step-by-step usage instructions: when to call first with answers and consent, what to do with the returned summary and token, and when to call again with confirmation. It also gives an explicit when-not condition ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), leaving no ambiguity about how and when the tool should be used.

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