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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses the two-phase token flow, that submission is not a purchase or quote, that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry, and the precise consent semantics. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 critical 'NOT a purchase' framing and orders the steps logically, so it reads well. It is somewhat dense and repeats the consent string already present in the schema, which slightly dilutes conciseness.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after step 2 (email with a verification link). For a nested-object, two-phase tool this is complete enough 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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by tying each parameter to the workflow: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1. That flow relationship adds meaning beyond the per-field schema text.

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 (submits) and resource (enquiry) and immediately disambiguates from what it is not (NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote). It also names the sibling it depends on (enquiry_fields) for the field keys, so an agent can distinguish it from enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields without opening schemas.

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?

Lays out the exact two-step invocation: step 1 with answers+consent, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. It also names the prerequisite source (enquiry_fields) and the required user-facing actions, leaving little to inference.

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