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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It excellently explains the two-step stateful behavior, the validation-and-summary stage, the confirmation token handshake, the consent requirement, the email link, and that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the link. This is rich, honest behavioral context.

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 long but every part earns its place: it front-loads the critical 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote' caveat, then clearly separates Step 1 and Step 2 with concrete actions and response artifacts. The consent text is included verbatim, which removes ambiguity.

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?

The description thoroughly covers the two-step protocol, consent wording, email behavior, and what step 1 returns. Since there is no output schema, a minor gap is that the return value of the step-2 call is not described beyond 'the enquiry is then submitted,' but the overall flow is clear enough for an agent to proceed.

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?

The schema already has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how the parameters relate to the two-step flow: answers are keyed by enquiry_fields, consent requires the exact quoted agreement, and confirmation is the token returned in step 1. This sequencing knowledge is not inferable from the schema alone.

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 action ('Submits an enquiry'), names the exact resource ('Georgia Roof Replacement Cost'), and clearly distinguishes this from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also conveys the two-step nature in both the title and description, so an agent can immediately tell what the tool is for.

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 description gives explicit step-by-step usage: call first with answers and consent, show the summary, then call again only after approval with the confirmation token. It explains when NOT to proceed (until the person agrees) and references enquiry_fields, but it does not explicitly name siblings as alternatives or state when to use enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields instead.

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