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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses validation, the step-1 response contents, the consent requirement with exact wording, the email with a required click before provider visibility, and the fact that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote.

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 a single dense paragraph but front-loads the core action and exclusion before stepping through the protocol. Every sentence carries necessary workflow or consent information, and the Step 1/Step 2 structure is easy for an agent to follow.

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 two-step, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers prerequisites (answers keyed by field key), the call sequence, the return values from step 1, the user-approval gate, and the post-submission email-link behavior. The main omissions, such as validation-failure handling, are minor given how much context is provided.

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% and the schema already explains each parameter precisely. The description adds workflow meaning beyond the schema by explaining that confirmation is the step-1 token, that answers must be keyed by enquiry_fields, and that consent must be true only after the person has read the exact consent line.

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 opens with a specific action ('Submits an enquiry') and names the target service, Marine Insurance Cost. It explicitly scopes what the tool is not (a purchase or guaranteed quote), and the field-key reference ties it to enquiry_fields so an agent can tell it apart from the sibling describe/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?

It provides a concrete two-step call protocol: first call with answers and consent=true, then a second call only after the person approves and with the confirmation token added. It also states the condition for proceeding and the exclusion ('NOT a purchase'), so the agent knows both when to invoke it and when not to.

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