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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so exceptionally. It discloses that the first call does not submit, what it returns (summary, consent line, token), the need for user approval, the second-call requirement, and the email link that must be clicked before providers see the enquiry. It even quotes the exact consent text.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose and exclusions, and every sentence contributes to correct usage. It is somewhat long and runs multiple steps into one paragraph, but the complexity justifies the length; a more bulleted structure could improve scannability.

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?

Given the two-step protocol, the consent requirement, nested answers, and the absence of any annotations, the description is thorough enough for an agent to call the tool correctly through both steps. It covers the outputs of step 1, the condition for step 2, and the downstream email behavior, leaving no critical invocation detail 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful meaning beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after the exact consent statement is accepted, and confirmation is the token from step 1. This elevates parameter understanding beyond mere names and types.

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 states a specific verb ('Submits an enquiry') and a clear resource ('Florida Solar Cost Calculator'), and explicitly distinguishes the tool from a purchase or guaranteed quote. This makes its purpose unambiguous and separates it from related tools like calculate.

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 two-step workflow is explicitly laid out: first call with answers and consent=true, show the summary, then call again only if the person agrees. It also references enquiry_fields, implying a dependency on that sibling. However, it does not explicitly say 'use calculate for quotes instead' or name alternatives directly, so the contrast with siblings is slightly implicit.

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