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

With no annotations given, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/token, step 2 actually submits and triggers an email, and providers see the enquiry only after the person clicks the emailed link. It also defines consent with the exact wording.

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 a single dense paragraph but is logically organized by Step 1/Step 2 and front-loads the purpose before the procedure. Every sentence carries necessary information about workflow, consent, or side effects; no filler is present.

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?

For a two-step tool with no output schema, the description fully explains inputs, outputs of each step, the consent requirement, and the downstream email-link behavior. An agent has everything needed to call step 1, relay the summary, and conditionally execute step 2.

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 covers all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds step-specific meaning beyond the schema: answers are keyed from enquiry_fields, consent must be true in both calls, and confirmation is the token returned in step 1 that enables step 2.

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 PRO Services Prices') and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The title reinforces 'two steps; not a purchase,' and the reference to 'enquiry_fields' positions it relative to sibling tools. An agent can tell exactly what action this performs.

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?

Provides an explicit two-step workflow: first call with answers and consent=true to get a token, then call again with the same answers, consent, and token only if the person agrees. It also states exclusions ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and points to enquiry_fields for the answer keys.

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