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 the two-step consent flow, that step 1 returns a summary/consent line/token rather than submitting, that consent forwards contact details to up to three agents, and that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry. These are exactly the non-obvious side effects an agent needs.

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 constraint (not a purchase) and cleanly structured into Step 1/Step 2. Slightly hurt by quoting the full consent text, which is already reproduced verbatim in the schema's consent parameter description.

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 tool with a nested answers object and no output schema, the description covers inputs, sequencing, intermediate return values, and downstream effects. An agent has everything needed to drive both calls 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, but the description adds real semantics: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must reflect the person's agreement, and the confirmation token comes from step 1 only after summary approval. It clarifies when confirmation is required, which the schema alone leaves implicit.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Submits an enquiry to HomeCover HQ') and immediately scopes it with two negations ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which distinguishes it from purchase/quote siblings. Cross-references enquiry_fields for the answer keys, further separating it from its sibling tools.

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 explicit call sequencing: Step 1 with answers + consent=true, Step 2 only after the person agrees, with the same answers plus the confirmation token. States the gating condition ('only if the person agrees') and the required dependency (field keys from enquiry_fields).

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