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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the two-step confirmation flow, that submission triggers an email with a verification link, that no provider sees the enquiry until that link is clicked, and that contact details go to up to three contractors who may contact the person directly. These are exactly the side-effect and consent semantics an agent must know before invoking a mutation.

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 — well structured. It loses a point for re-quoting the full consent sentence verbatim, which already appears in the schema's consent description, making it longer than strictly necessary.

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 (a summary, the consent line, a confirmation token) and what happens after step 2 (email verification before providers see it). An agent has everything needed to drive 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields (a sibling tool), that consent=true is required at both steps, and that confirmation is the token returned by step 1. This relational 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 to Metal Roof Cost Calculator") and immediately scopes what it is not ("NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote"). This lets an agent distinguish it from the calculate/calculator sibling tools without opening any schema.

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, ordered when-to-use protocol: Step 1 with answers + consent=true, show the person the summary and consent line, then Step 2 only if the person agrees, with the confirmation token. The gating condition for each call is stated, 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.