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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses the validation step, what is returned in step 1, that step 2 is conditional on human approval, that submission triggers a double-opt-in email link, and it quotes the exact consent scope (up to three firms, right to stop). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 purpose and the 'not a purchase' caveat, then the two steps in order. The embedded consent quote is long but is arguably load-bearing, since consent semantics are the tool's core safeguard; the rest of the prose earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens on step 2 (email link, provider visibility gated on click). Combined with nested-object params, nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 meaning beyond the schema: it explains that answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that consent must be true in both calls, and critically that the confirmation token is only obtainable from a prior step-1 call after human approval. That sequencing is semantic information the schema cannot express.

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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Jet Operating Cost') and immediately distinguishes itself from what an agent might assume it is ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The two-step nature is spelled out, so it is clearly separable from siblings like calculate and enquiry_describe.

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?

Explicit procedural routing: step 1 with answers and consent=true, step 2 only if the person agrees, with the token. It also names the gating condition (person must click an email link before any provider sees it) and points at enquiry_fields for the answer keys.

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