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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this exceptionally well: it explicitly says this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, explains the two-step consent flow, states that the person receives an email and must click a link before any provider sees the enquiry, and defines consent verbatim.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose before the step details. It is longer than minimal because it encodes an important two-step consent process, and nearly every sentence contributes necessary behavioral or safety information. The consent quote is repeated from the schema, but that repetition is justified by the need to make consent explicit in natural-language guidance.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly: it covers the two required calls, the display obligation, the token flow, the consent requirement, and the post-submit email/link gate. It also points to enquiry_fields for constructing the answers object, closing the main contextual gap.

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 adds meaningful context beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, the same answers must be reused in step 2, and the confirmation token comes from step 1 only after the person approves the summary. This clarifies the lifecycle of the parameters rather than just restating their types.

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 verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Incorporate Where.' It also sharply distinguishes the tool from a purchase and a guaranteed quote, and the two-step framing clarifies what the tool does. The title reinforces the same message, and the behavior is clearly separable from the 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?

The description gives explicit step-by-step usage guidance: first call validates and returns a summary and token, second call submits only if the person agrees. It also references enquiry_fields as the source of answer keys. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, but the when-to-call instructions are clear enough that an agent can follow the correct flow.

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