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 the two-phase validation, the returned confirmation token and consent line, the required human approval gate, the downstream email with a click-to-confirm link before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact consent wording. This is unusually rich disclosure of side effects and auth/consent requirements.

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 opening clause front-loads the critical 'not a purchase' distinction, and every sentence carries load (flow, token, email link, consent text). It is dense and slightly long, but no sentence is expendable; a minor trim of the repeated consent wording could tighten it.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 triggers (email with a confirmation link). For a two-step, nested-object tool this is complete enough to invoke 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 baseline 3 applies, but the description adds real meaning: 'answers' are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after the person agreed, and the confirmation token is the step-1 output replayed in step 2 to complete submission. That binds the three params into the flow better than 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) plus resource (enquiry) and immediately scopes it with negatives — NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote — which disambiguates it from any transaction-flavored sibling. An agent can distinguish it from enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields, which only inspect fields and metadata.

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 prescribes the when: Step 1 with answers and consent=true to validate, then Step 2 only if the person agrees. The condition selecting the second call and the show-the-summary requirement are 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.