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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It reveals the stateful two-step behavior, validation, returned summary/consent/token, the email-link requirement before providers see the enquiry, and the exact consent wording. This is far beyond a minimal action description.

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 the critical 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote' boundary, then organized into step 1 and step 2. The consent quote is long but necessary for exact user agreement, and no sentence is filler.

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 two-step stateful submission with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies all necessary protocol details: what step 1 returns, what to show the user, and what step 2 requires. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds operational meaning: answers are keyed by enquiry_fields, consent must be true and matches the exact quoted line, and the confirmation token comes from step 1 and is reused in step 2. This connects parameters to the workflow.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Freight Insurance Cost' and explicitly excludes 'purchase' and 'guaranteed quote'. It clearly differentiates from the sibling tools by focusing on submission and referencing enquiry_fields for answer keys.

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 two-step protocol: step 1 validates and returns a token, step 2 resubmits with the token after the person agrees. It clearly states when consent is required and warns against treating it as a purchase/quote, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like enquiry_describe.

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