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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers richly: it discloses the non-binding nature (not a purchase/quote), the two-phase commit pattern, and the side effect that the person receives an email with a link 'they must click before any provider sees it.' It also pins down consent semantics by quoting the exact text the person must agree to.

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?

Roughly 90 words with zero wasted content: the negative framing, both steps, the token round-trip, the email gating, and the quoted consent line all earn their place. The structure is linear (step 1 then step 2) and front-loaded with the core purpose, so an agent can parse the flow sequentially.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations yet a genuinely complex two-call commit flow, the description leaves nothing material out: call order, token reuse, side effects, non-binding scope, and consent prerequisites are all specified. An agent can execute both steps correctly end-to-end without any external 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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds beyond it by explaining that the same answers and consent=true are reused across both calls and that confirmation is the step-1 output. The sequencing semantics (which parameters belong to which step) are genuinely useful; the schema itself already documents the confirmation token's origin, which is why this is a 4 rather than a 5.

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 action and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Florida Roof Replacement Cost' — a clear verb + object. It disambiguates immediately with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote' and the title's 'two steps' framing, which differentiates it from sibling tools (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) that serve earlier steps in the same flow.

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 protocol: step 1 validates with answers + consent=true and returns a token; step 2 submits 'only if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the token. It also routes the agent to the prerequisite sibling by specifying answers are 'keyed by field key from enquiry_fields' — clear context, concrete conditions, no ambiguity about when to call.

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