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 submission only happens on step 2, that a confirmation email click is required before any provider sees the data, and it spells out exactly what consent authorizes (up to three contractors, direct contact, stop rights).

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 most important disambiguation ('NOT a purchase') and the step order is easy to follow. It loses a point for reproducing the full consent sentence verbatim, which already appears in the consent parameter's schema description, adding length without new information.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers the return values (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and the downstream consequence (email link, provider visibility). For a nested-object, two-phase tool this is complete enough to call 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 genuine meaning: answers must be keyed by field key obtained from enquiry_fields, consent must be true, and the confirmation token is only supplied on the second call after the person approves the summary. The only shortfall is that the mechanics of the token are also partly restated in the schema.

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?

Specific verb (submits) plus resource (an enquiry) with an explicit negative scope: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also names the sibling it draws its input keys from (enquiry_fields), so an agent can separate it from enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields 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?

The description lays out the exact two-step protocol: step 1 with answers+consent, show the summary and consent line; step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the token. Both the when and the gating condition are stated outright, 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.