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 in step 1, the returned summary/consent line/token, the mutation in step 2, and the downstream consequence that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry. It also defines exactly what consent asserts.

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 two-step structure is front-loaded and each sentence carries operational weight. The verbatim consent clause is somewhat long and partially duplicates the consent property description, but it is material to correct invocation, so the length is defensible.

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 two-step, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the call sequence, required inputs per step, what step 1 returns, and the downstream email-confirmation requirement. Nothing essential is missing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: answers are keyed by field key sourced from enquiry_fields, and confirmation is a token produced by step 1 and used only in step 2. This step-dependent relationship between parameters is not derivable from the 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 (submits) and resource (an enquiry to Contractor Lead Quotes), and explicitly negates the two most likely misinterpretations: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also names the related sibling enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, so an agent can place it without opening a 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 procedure with clear triggers: step 1 when answers and consent=true are ready, step 2 only if the person agrees to the summary. The when-not (do not submit before approval) is stated as a hard condition rather than left to inference.

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