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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that the enquiry only reaches providers after the person clicks an emailed link, and exactly what consent means via the quoted disclosure text. Nothing about the mutation's effects or downstream visibility is hidden.

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 key disambiguation (NOT a purchase), then sequenced as Step 1 and Step 2. The long quoted consent text is verbose but necessary because it defines the exact consent contract the agent must present.

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 nested-object, two-phase mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the full workflow, the consent semantics, the token round-trip, and the downstream email-verification gate. An agent has everything needed to call both steps 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1. This goes beyond the schema's structural definitions to explain usage semantics.

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), and immediately disambiguates it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. This distinguishes it from the calculation-oriented siblings like calculate and calculator_describe.

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 lays out the two-step protocol, specifying exactly when to call step 1 (with answers and consent=true) and step 2 (only if the person agrees, with the confirmation token). The gating condition for step 2 is spelled out 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.