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 that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that nothing is submitted until step 2, that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the data, and that details go to up to three suppliers who may contact directly. It also defines what consent means, which is critical for an irreversible data-sharing action.

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 and clearly segmented with 'Step 1:'/'Step 2:' labels, so the reader gets the not-a-purchase caveat and the sequence first. The verbatim repetition of the long consent paragraph (already in the schema) is mild redundancy, but the overall length is justified by the two-step protocol.

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?

Covers everything an agent needs for a 3-param tool with no output schema: it describes the step-1 return values (summary, consent line, token), the step-2 side effect (submission plus verification email), the dependency on enquiry_fields, and the consent semantics. The nested 'answers' object is tied to its external source.

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 pins 'answers' to field keys from enquiry_fields, restricts 'consent' to the agree case, and crucially explains that 'confirmation' is the token returned in step 1 and used only after the person approves the summary. This is more than the schema's field-level docs provide.

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 HVAC Software') and immediately negates likely misreadings ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The two-step framing plus reference to 'enquiry_fields' distinguishes it clearly from siblings like compare_table, 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?

Explicitly spells out when to call each step: step 1 with answers keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and consent=true; step 2 only 'if the person agrees', with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The gating condition and the alternative sequence are both stated, 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.