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 well: it discloses the two-step validate-then-submit flow, the return of a summary/consent line/confirmation token, and the post-submission email-link gate that must be clicked before any provider sees the data. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before mutating state.

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 purpose and the not-a-purchase caveat, then walks the two steps in order. It is long but nearly every clause carries operational weight; the only redundancy is restating the consent sentence that also appears in the schema.

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 nested-object, two-phase mutation with no output schema, the description covers the inputs, the intermediate return artifacts, the confirmation loop, and the downstream email-verification effect. Nothing needed to invoke 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 meaning: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, and confirmation is the token returned in step 1 after the person approves the summary. It does not add much beyond that, so 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+resource (submits an enquiry to Roofing Quotes UK) and immediately disambiguates what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also routes the agent to the enquiry_fields sibling as the source of field keys, so the submit/discover split is clear.

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, ordered when-to-call instructions for both invocations, including the gating condition ('only if the person agrees') and the required consent=true. The not-a-purchase framing covers the main when-not case an agent would otherwise confuse.

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