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 meets it: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, the two-phase submission, the downstream email confirmation step, and exactly what consent authorizes (contact details to up to three advisers, opt-out rights). This is unusually rich 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-loaded with the most important qualifier (not a purchase) and cleanly organized into Step 1 / Step 2. It is dense but every clause is functional, with minor redundancy from restating the full consent text already present in the schema.

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?

Given a two-step, nested-object tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything needed: what each step returns, how the token is obtained and reused, the consent gate, and the post-submission email flow.

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 sequencing semantics the schema cannot: consent=true is used in both steps, while confirmation is only added in Step 2 after approval, and answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields. The verbatim consent quote duplicates the schema's own consent description.

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") and immediately bounds scope with "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote," which disambiguates it from a checkout or quoting tool. The sibling tools (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) are implicitly routed away by the explicit instruction to key answers "by field key from 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?

Explicit about when to call each step: Step 1 with answers + consent=true to validate, Step 2 only "if the person agrees" with the added confirmation token. Also states the consent gate and that the person must click an email link before providers see anything.

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