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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: validation and token return in step 1, submission only after step 2, a consent message requirement, and the post-submission email link that must be clicked before providers see the enquiry. This goes well beyond a simple 'submits an enquiry' statement.

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 description is dense and front-loaded with the key caveat ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It is longer than minimal because it must explain a two-step flow, but each sentence carries necessary procedural or consent information. Minor loss of conciseness from the detailed consent quote, which is nonetheless valuable.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 produces (submission plus email link). It also ties the optional confirmation parameter to the workflow, making the tool fully callable without additional documentation.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent has a specific required text, and confirmation is the token from step 1. This clarifies the relationship between parameters and the workflow, though the schema already documents the basic types and descriptions.

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 to FBA Forwarders') and explicitly scopes what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also clearly distinguishes the two-step submit workflow from sibling tools like enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe by naming the field-key source and the confirmation step.

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?

Provides an explicit step-by-step usage protocol: Step 1 call with answers and consent=true, show the person the summary and consent line, then Step 2 call only after agreement with the same answers plus the confirmation token. This gives the agent unambiguous conditions for when to invoke the tool and how to sequence it.

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