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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that nothing is submitted until step 2, and that providers cannot see the enquiry until the person clicks an emailed link. It does not cover error handling, idempotency, or repeat-submission behavior, leaving minor gaps for a mutation tool.

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 purpose and the two-step structure before details, which is effective. It is slightly long and repeats the full consent sentence that already appears verbatim in the schema's consent property, which costs a little efficiency.

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, so the description must explain returns, and it does: step 1 yields a summary, consent line and confirmation token; step 2 triggers a confirmation email. For a two-step submission tool with a nested answers object, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by tying the parameters into a flow: answers keyed by field key sourced from enquiry_fields, consent gated on the quoted agreement text, and confirmation being the token returned from step 1.

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 Outsourced IT Quotes') and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' An agent can distinguish this from the enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields helper siblings without opening any schema.

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 protocol: Step 1 with answers + consent=true, Step 2 only if the person agrees, with the confirmation token. The condition selecting each call is spelled out, and enquiry_fields is named as the source of the field keys.

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