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 richly: it discloses the validation behavior of step 1 (returns summary, consent line, token), the exact effect of step 2 (enquiry submitted, email with a required click before providers see it), the double opt-in gate, and the precise consent semantics (details sent to up to three contractors, emailed per firm, can stop).

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 purpose and negation, then structured as Step 1 / Step 2, which is ideal for a sequential workflow. It is long, and the repeated verbatim consent text is somewhat verbose, but each sentence earns its place.

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 exists, so the description must explain return behavior — and it does: step 1 returns a summary, consent line and confirmation token, and step 2 results in an email requiring a click. For a nested-object, two-phase submission tool this is complete.

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 workflow meaning beyond the schema: 'answers' are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, 'consent=true' is tied to the exact agreement, and 'confirmation' is the step-1 token that only applies after user approval — clarifying the sequential role of the third parameter.

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+resource ('Submits an enquiry to Florida Roof Replacement Cost') and immediately disambiguates from adjacent concepts ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). An agent can distinguish it from a purchase or quote tool without opening the 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-step calling contract, including the condition that gates step 2 ('only if the person agrees') and the requirement that the user be shown the summary and consent line before proceeding. It also points to enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, routing the agent to the correct sibling.

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