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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains the validation step, the confirmation token mechanism, the need for the recipient to click an emailed link before providers see the enquiry, and the exact consent wording. This gives the agent a complete picture of the tool's behavior.

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 structured clearly with Step 1 and Step 2, front-loading the critical distinction that this is not a purchase. Every sentence contributes actionable guidance, and the repeated consent text is necessary because the agent must display it to the user.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description fully equips the agent to execute the two-step process correctly: what to send, what to show, when to resubmit, and what the recipient must do. Nothing essential for invoking the tool 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. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and by clarifying the role of the confirmation token across the two steps. This is a meaningful but modest addition.

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: submitting an enquiry to human providers, and immediately clarifies it is not a purchase or guaranteed quote. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like calculate and enquiry_describe by framing the two-step human-submission flow.

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: call first with answers and consent, show the summary, then call again only if the person agrees. It also references enquiry_fields for keying answers and includes explicit exclusions such as 'not a purchase' and 'not a guaranteed quote'.

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