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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It explains that the tool validates, returns a summary and consent line, requires a confirmation token, sends an email after submission, and that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the email link.

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 longer than average, but it earns the length by explaining a genuinely two-step process with a consent requirement. The key non-purchase/non-quote distinction is front-loaded, and the stepwise structure makes the procedure easy 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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It tells the agent what to do in step 1, what to show the person, when to proceed to step 2, what to pass, what happens after submission, and the exact consent text. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 meaningful operational context: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true, and the confirmation parameter is the token from step 1. This goes beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 clearly and specifically states that the tool submits an enquiry to a named provider, explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote, and the two-step nature is immediately visible in the title and description. This differentiates it from sibling tools like enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields.

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 guidance: step 1 call with answers and consent=true to get a token, then step 2 call with the same answers plus the token only if the person agrees. It also states what is NOT this tool's purpose, which helps an agent decide when not to use it.

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