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: it discloses validation behavior, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the human-agreement gate before step 2, the double-opt-in email with a link that must be clicked before any provider sees the data, and the exact text consent refers to. This is unusually complete for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loads the 'not a purchase' disclaimer, then structures the rest as Step 1 / Step 2. It is dense and runs long, but every clause conveys an operational constraint (gating, token, consent text) rather than filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains what step 1 returns and what happens downstream (email link, provider visibility), covering the return-value gap. Combined with the 100%-covered schema, an agent has everything needed to drive both calls correctly.

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 real meaning: answers are keyed by field key from the sibling enquiry_fields tool, consent=true maps to the quoted consent sentence, and 'confirmation' is the step-1 token to be supplied only after the person approves the summary. Minor gain over schema, hence 4 rather than 3.

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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Commercial Refinance Quotes') and immediately distinguishes itself with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', which matters given the sibling enquiry_* tools. An agent can identify the tool without opening the 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 an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers and consent=true, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. It also names the intermediate action (show the summary and consent line to the person) that gates the second call. Nothing about when to invoke each step is left to inference.

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