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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary, consent line and token; that the enquiry is not submitted until step 2; that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees it; and that details go to up to three agents who can be stopped. This is far beyond what the bare schema reveals.

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 the critical distinction ('NOT a purchase') and then structures the two steps clearly. It is long, and the full consent paragraph is duplicated verbatim from the schema's consent description, which is mildly redundant, but the length is largely earned by the two-step workflow.

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?

Despite no output schema and a nested-object parameter, the description explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token) and what happens after step 2, so an agent knows how to act on each response. Nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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 real workflow semantics: 'answers' are keyed by field key sourced from enquiry_fields, 'consent' must be true only after agreement, and 'confirmation' is the token from step 1. That explains the intended use pattern of each parameter beyond the field-level schema text.

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 human providers) and immediately scopes it with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also names the sibling source for its input keys ('keyed by field key from enquiry_fields'), so an agent can distinguish it from the read-only siblings without opening a 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 explicit conditional guidance: Step 1 with answers+consent, Step 2 only if the person agrees, adding the confirmation token. It routes the agent to enquiry_fields for keys. It does not say when to prefer this over enquiry_describe or how to recover from a failed validation, leaving a small gap.

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