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 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that the person must click an email link before providers see data, and spells out the exact consent wording. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent could not infer.

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-loads the critical distinction (NOT a purchase/quote) before the procedural detail. It is dense and long, but nearly every clause carries operational meaning; minor compression is possible but nothing is truly wasted.

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 stateful, two-call tool with nested answers, no output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies everything needed: step sequencing, return values, consent semantics, and the email-confirmation gate. An agent can execute both steps correctly from this text alone.

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 is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the cross-parameter state machine — confirmation token only applies to step 2 after approval, and answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields. It maps the consent boolean to explicit wording.

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+resource (submits an enquiry to human providers) and immediately disambiguates it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also distinguishes itself from read-only siblings like enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe, which merely describe or list fields rather than submit.

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: step 1 with answers+consent=true to validate, step 2 with token only after the person agrees. The when-to-proceed condition is stated rather than inferred, and the alternative (not a purchase) is excluded.

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