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 thoroughly: it discloses validation behavior, the exact return payload of step 1 (summary, consent line, token), that the person must show and approve the summary, and that submission triggers an email link the person must click before any provider sees the data. It also spells out the downstream effect (contact details sent to up to three firms, notified per firm, can opt out).

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 two-step flow and the not-a-purchase caveat, and each sentence maps to an actionable decision. The repeated consent string is long but is quoted material the agent must display verbatim, so it 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?

For a three-parameter nested-object tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything needed: the staged protocol, the returned token, the required user-facing disclosure, and the post-submission email verification gate.

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 goes beyond it: it explains that `answers` is keyed by field key sourced from enquiry_fields, that `consent` must be paired with the actual consent text, and that `confirmation` is the token from step 1 held until the person approves the summary. This adds real invocation meaning the schema alone does not convey.

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 name, title and first sentence state a specific verb (submit) and resource (enquiry) to human providers, and explicitly negate the two most likely misreadings: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling read-only tools (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) by framing this as the terminal action.

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?

It prescribes exactly when to call step 1 (with answers + consent=true) and the strict precondition for step 2 (only if the person agrees, with the returned token). It also states the when-not (not a purchase, not a quote) and the consent condition that gates the call.

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