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 well: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary, consent line and token; that step 2 must reuse the same answers plus the token; that an email click-through is required before any provider sees the enquiry; and it states the exact scope of consent (contact details to up to three contractors, emailed per firm, revocable).

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 step-by-step structure is front-loaded and every sentence carries operational meaning, but the consent text is quoted verbatim and is already duplicated inside the schema's consent parameter description, which is redundant bulk.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description fills that gap by describing what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what the final outcome is (email with a click-through link). For a nested-object, non-purchase flow with no annotations, this is complete enough to execute 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: it explains that 'answers' is keyed by field keys obtained from enquiry_fields, and it clarifies the lifecycle of 'confirmation' (returned by step 1, must be echoed in step 2 alongside the same answers). Some overlap with the schema's consent text keeps it from a 5.

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 Ohio Roof Replacement Cost') and immediately scopes it against misconceptions ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also names the sibling it depends on ('keyed by field key from enquiry_fields'), so an agent can distinguish it from 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?

Gives an explicit two-step sequence with the condition that gates step 2 ('only if the person agrees') and the prerequisite of fetching field keys from enquiry_fields. Nothing about when or how to invoke it is left to inference.

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