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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the exact consent text, the two-step validation flow, the requirement to show the summary and consent line, the email with a clickable link, and the fact that providers only see the enquiry after that link is clicked. This is highly transparent with no annotation contradiction.

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 but well-organized, front-loading the critical 'NOT a purchase' disclaimer and then clearly separating Step 1 and Step 2. Every sentence contributes essential workflow information; the repetition of the consent line is justified because it is the exact legal text 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 complex two-step tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return values expected from Step 1 (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the follow-up invocation, and the email-link behavior. It also references the correct source for answer keys. Nothing essential 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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: answers must be keyed using enquiry_fields, consent has an exact legal wording, and the confirmation parameter is specifically 'the confirmation token from step 1, after the person has approved the summary'. This materially improves an agent's ability to populate the parameters correctly.

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?

The description clearly states the specific action: 'Submits an enquiry to Florida HVAC Replacement Cost', and explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. The title and two-step framing also make its purpose unambiguous, and it is clearly distinct from the informational sibling tools enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields.

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 gives explicit, step-by-step usage instructions: Step 1 requires answers plus consent, and Step 2 requires the confirmation token only after the person agrees. It also references the sibling tool enquiry_fields for how to key answers, and states what the tool is not for ('NOT a purchase'), providing strong guidance on when and how to invoke it.

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