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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses validation, token issuance, the need for the person's agreement, email delivery, the click-before-provider-visible condition, and the exact consent wording. No assumptions are left hidden.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: the non-purchase disclaimer, the two-step flow, the token handoff, and the consent text are all essential. The 'Step 1:' and 'Step 2:' structure makes the sequence easy to follow without waste.

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 complex two-step submission tool, the description covers the full lifecycle: prerequisites (answers from enquiry_fields), validation, token return, user approval, final submission, email notification, and the provider-visible condition. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the description stating what step 1 returns and what step 2 accomplishes.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds operational meaning beyond this by mapping parameters to the two steps (consent=true in both calls, confirmation only in step 2) and defining exactly what the answers object should contain (keyed by field key from enquiry_fields). This extra context lifts it to a 4.

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 the specific action 'Submits an enquiry to Oklahoma Foundation Repair Cost' and immediately disambiguates from purchases or quotes. It also references enquiry_fields as the source of field keys and sibling tools with different purposes (describe, get fields), making it distinct.

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 an explicit two-step protocol: call with answers and consent=true, show the summary and consent line, then call again with the same answers, consent=true, and the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It also clarifies this is not a purchase and that the recipient must click an emailed link before providers see the enquiry, guiding when and how to invoke the tool.

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