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 that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that nothing is submitted until step 2, and that the person must click an email link before any provider sees the enquiry. It even states the exact consent text, which is the substantive authorization requirement.

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 purpose and the not-a-purchase disclaimers, then walks the two steps in order. The paragraph is dense and the quoted consent sentence is long, but each clause carries functional information (validation, return payload, email gating, consent scope) rather than filler.

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 two-phase, nested-object, mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the call sequence, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token), what the person experiences after step 2, and the consent semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'confirmation' is only supplied on the second call after the person approves the summary, and 'answers' must be keyed by field keys sourced from enquiry_fields. Only the value types and nesting are left to the schema, which is appropriate.

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 FindAgency HQ') and immediately negates the two most likely misreadings ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The title and description together let an agent distinguish this from sibling tools like enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe without opening a schema.

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-call protocol: step 1 with answers+consent, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. It also routes the agent to enquiry_fields as the source of the answer keys, so the sequencing and the prerequisite are both unambiguous.

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