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 richly: it discloses what each step returns, that a confirmation token gates submission, that no provider sees the enquiry until the person clicks an emailed verification link, the scope of consent (up to three contractors), and how to stop further sharing.

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 key differentiator (not a purchase) and cleanly organized into Step 1 / Step 2. The verbatim consent sentence is long, but it is the literal text the agent must display, so it earns its length rather than being padding.

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, and the description compensates by describing what each step returns (validated summary, consent line, confirmation token) as well as the downstream double opt-in email. Nothing an agent needs to complete both calls is missing.

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 workflow meaning beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true, and confirmation is only supplied in the second call after the person approves the summary. This sequencing context is not evident from the field descriptions 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) and immediately disambiguates it from adjacent concepts with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. The named recipient ('Oklahoma Foundation Repair Cost', human providers) and the two-step nature make it distinguishable from the sibling tools at a glance.

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 explicit when-to-use sequencing: Step 1 with answers+consent, then 'only if the person agrees' Step 2 with the token. It also routes the agent to the sibling enquiry_fields for field keys, so both the condition and the alternative source of data are named.

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