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: it discloses the validation pass, the returned summary/consent line/confirmation token, the two-phase commit, the requirement that the recipient click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact data-sharing scope. These are non-obvious behavioral facts an agent must know to avoid submitting prematurely.

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 purpose and structured as Step 1/Step 2, with every clause doing work. Slightly penalized because the full consent sentence is reproduced verbatim from the schema's consent description, a minor redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates what each phase returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and the downstream email-link flow, so an agent knows both the call protocol and the side effects. Nothing material is missing for a 3-parameter nested tool.

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; the description earns above baseline by explaining that answers are keyed by field key sourced from enquiry_fields and that confirmation is only used after summary approval. It largely restates what the schema already says about consent, hence a 4 rather than 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 (submits) and resource (an enquiry to PotterySuppliesHQ) and explicitly negates the two most likely misreadings: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also routes the agent to the sibling that supplies field keys (enquiry_fields), so it is distinguishable from enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe.

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 with the exact condition selecting each call: step 1 with answers+consent to validate, step 2 only if the person agrees, with the same payload plus the token. Nothing about when to invoke this vs. alternatives 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.