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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the validation-and-summary return of step 1, the token prerequisite for step 2, the post-submission email confirmation link that providers must wait on before seeing details, and the precise scope of consent. This is well beyond what the schema conveys.

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-loaded with the identity and the 'not a purchase' framing, then the two steps in order. It loses a point because the full consent quotation is reproduced verbatim from the schema's consent description, which is redundant text an agent can already read there.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates fully: it describes what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token), what the user must be shown, and the downstream email/consent flow. An agent can execute both calls correctly from this text alone.

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: it explains that answers are keyed by field keys produced by enquiry_fields, that consent must be true, and that confirmation is the token returned from step 1 and only used on the second call. The step ordering is not derivable from the flat schema alone.

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 Compare Answering') and immediately scopes it with two negations ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also implicitly differentiates from the sibling enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe tools by referring to 'field key from enquiry_fields' as the input source.

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 + consent=true to validate and obtain a token, step 2 only if the person agrees, re-sending answers and the token. The condition selecting each call is spelled out with no inference required.

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