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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It explains the two-step validation and submission flow, the confirmation token, the consent line, the email link requirement, and exactly what consent means by quoting the consent text.

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 critical 'NOT a purchase' clarification, then structures the two-step process explicitly. The consent quote is included because it is essential to evaluating whether consent=true is appropriate.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, expected inputs, step sequencing, return values for step 1, the email follow-up, and the consent requirement. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the two-step process without additional context.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context: answers are 'keyed by field key from enquiry_fields', consent is tied to the exact quoted consent text, and confirmation is clearly identified as 'the confirmation token from step 1, after the person has approved the summary'. This maps each parameter to its role in the flow.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it submits an enquiry to human providers at Colorado Roof Replacement Cost, and immediately clarifies what it is NOT ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This verb-resource pairing and explicit scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like 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 provides explicit step-by-step usage instructions: Step 1 requires answers and consent=true and returns a token; Step 2 should only be called 'only if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. It also gives a precise condition for proceeding, making it clear when the tool should and should not be invoked.

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