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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses the two-call validation flow, that a confirmation token is mandatory for the second call, that the person receives an email requiring a link click before any provider sees the enquiry, and it spells out exactly what consent means. These are the side effects and consent/authorization requirements an agent must know.

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 core action and the key negation, then structured as Step 1 / Step 2, which is easy to follow. The verbatim consent sentence is already reproduced in the schema's consent description, making that clause mildly redundant and slightly bloating the text.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema and a nested answers object, the description is thorough: it explains step 1's return payload (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and the downstream email gate. It does not state what the second call returns, which is a minor remaining 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining how the parameters relate across calls: answers keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent=true on both calls, and the confirmation token being the value returned by step 1 rather than something the agent invents.

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 (an enquiry to Injection Molding Cost Checker), and explicitly disambiguates from what it is not: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also ties itself to sibling tools by referencing field keys from enquiry_fields, so an agent can separate it from the dataset_* and enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields 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 step-by-step usage: call once to validate and get a token, then call again 'only if the person agrees' with the token. It excludes a common misreading (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote). It never names an alternative tool for the adjacent need, so it stops short of a 5.

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