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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: consent must be obtained, contact details must be genuine, and a human team responds during opening hours. It does not say what confirmation or reference the caller receives back.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler; the consent and contact preconditions come early. The mid-sentence list of enquiry types duplicates the enum already present in the schema, which is slightly wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately covers who receives the enquiry and when they respond, which is the key return-value context. It could be more explicit about the acknowledgement the caller gets, but nothing essential for 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 88%, so most parameters are self-documenting, but the description adds a genuine constraint the schema lacks: although only name/type/message are formally required, at least one of phone or email is needed in practice. The enumerated enquiry types largely restate the schema enum rather than adding meaning.

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 names a specific verb and clearly bounded resource ('Send an enquiry to the Ruislip Appliances sales team on the customer's behalf') and enumerates the supported enquiry types, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It stops short of differentiating from siblings, and 'reserve an appliance' overlaps conceptually with create_basket/basket_link without an explicit routing rule.

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?

It gives real invocation conditions: only with the customer's agreement, only with their real contact details, and a contact requirement ('a name and a phone number or email'). There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for overlapping intents like basket creation.

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