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-call validation flow, the return artifacts (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the email-link gate before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact downstream effect (contact details sent to up to three contractors, per-firm notification, opt-out ability).

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-loads the identity and the critical negative framing ('NOT a purchase') before the mechanical steps, and every sentence carries operational content. The full consent quotation is long and duplicates the schema's consent description, which is the main (minor) redundancy.

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 three-parameter, nested-object tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the two-step protocol, what each step returns, how to source 'answers', when to pass 'confirmation', and the real-world consequence of consent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning: answers must be keyed by field key sourced from enquiry_fields, and 'confirmation' is only supplied on the second call after the person approves the summary. That extends beyond the schema's standalone field descriptions, though the consent wording is largely duplicated from the schema.

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'), names the recipient ('Missouri Foundation Repair Cost'), and immediately bounds the scope ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This distinguishes it from the sibling metadata tools enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which can only read fields rather than submit anything.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-call guidance: Step 1 with answers + consent=true returns a summary and token, Step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the token submits. It also names the dependency on enquiry_fields for field keys and states the exclusions (not a purchase, 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.