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 validates and returns a summary, consent line and token, that the summary must be shown to the person, that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry, and what consent legally means (up to three installers, opt-out). This is a mutation/commit tool with side effects, and the disclosure is thorough.

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-loads the most important disambiguation ('NOT a purchase') and the step sequence is easy to follow. However, the full consent text is quoted verbatim and duplicates the schema's consent description, which is redundant length.

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 multi-step committing tool with no output schema and a nested answers object, the description covers the return shape of step 1, the sequencing, and the downstream consequence (email confirmation gate). Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: answers are keyed by field key from the enquiry_fields sibling, consent must be true, and confirmation is the token returned in step 1. The cross-tool reference is the kind of context the schema cannot supply.

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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry') and immediately disambiguates what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which separates it from the sibling calculate tools. An agent can tell what this does 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: call with answers+consent=true first, and only call again with the confirmation token if the person agrees. The condition gating each step is stated, so nothing is left to inference.

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