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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does well: it explains validation, the two-step confirmation mechanism, email delivery, and that providers only see the enquiry after the link is clicked. It also includes the exact consent statement the user must agree to.

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 organized into clear step 1/step 2 instructions and every sentence contributes to explaining the consent flow. The repeated consent text is necessary for legal clarity, and the warning that this is not a purchase is concise and valuable.

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?

The description provides enough context for an agent to execute the entire two-step flow successfully, including what responses to expect, when to proceed, and what happens after submission. It is complete given the absence of an output schema.

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 describes all three parameters, but the description adds useful context: answers should be keyed by fields from enquiry_fields, and the confirmation token comes from step 1 after approval. This improves the schema's basic descriptions without being redundant.

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 states the tool submits an enquiry to human providers and distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also differentiates this from sibling tools like enquiry_fields by describing the submission flow.

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 instructions: first call with answers and consent=true to get a summary/token, then call again with the confirmation token only after the person approves. It also specifies when not to use it, such as for purchases.

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