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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses validation behavior, the returned artifacts (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the downstream gating email with a click-through requirement before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact consent wording. This is behavior well beyond what any caller could infer from the schema.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the critical negation and the two-step structure come first, and the quoted consent text earns its place because it must be shown verbatim to the person. The paragraph is long, but every clause carries an operational instruction rather than filler.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates fully: it explains what step 1 returns, what step 2 requires, and what happens to the person afterwards (verification email gating provider visibility). An agent has everything needed to invoke 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'answers' must be keyed by field key obtained from enquiry_fields, 'consent' must be true only after the person has read the stated line, and 'confirmation' is the token obtained in step 1 and used only after approval. That sequencing context is not derivable from the schema alone.

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') and immediately bounds it with the negations 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', which prevents the most likely misclassification. It is clearly distinguishable from the enquiry_* siblings (enquiry_fields, enquiry_describe) which only inspect rather than submit.

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 an explicit two-step protocol: Step 1 validates with answers+consent and returns a summary/token; Step 2 happens 'only if the person agrees' and requires the token. It names the trigger condition for each call and the prerequisite for resubmission, leaving nothing to inference.

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