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 richly: it discloses the two-step validation, that step 1 returns a summary/consent line/confirmation token, that the enquiry only submits on step 2, and that the person must click an email link before any provider sees the data. It also defines what consent means in full, which is exactly the kind of behavioral context that matters for a submission flow.

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?

Dense but front-loaded — the critical 'NOT a purchase' caveat and the two-step grammar come first. The full consent text is duplicated between description and schema, which is mild redundancy, but given the complexity of the consent contract the length is largely justified.

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 complex two-step, consent-gated submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the return values (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and the entire human-approval flow. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly at each step.

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 structured fields already document all three parameters (baseline 3). The description adds real value on top: it ties 'answers' to the field keys from the sibling enquiry_fields tool, clarifies consent=true is required in both steps, and explains the confirmation token originates from step 1 after approval.

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+resource ('Submits an enquiry to Colorado Roof Replacement Cost') and immediately distinguishes what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). Combined with the two-step framing, an agent can tell this apart from enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use rules for both call phases: Step 1 with the answers and consent=true, Step 2 only if the person agrees and with the confirmation token. The prerequisite chain and the 'not a purchase' exclusion are spelled out, 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.