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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it: validation behavior, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), what the user must do before providers see anything (click an emailed link), and the exact scope of consent (up to three agents, contacted directly, opt-out). This is exactly the context an agent needs 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?

The two-step flow is front-loaded and every operational sentence earns its place. The one redundancy is the verbatim consent text, which is duplicated in the schema's consent description, though repeating it is defensible since the agent must display it.

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 multi-step, consent-gated submission tool with a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: inputs, validation, return artifacts, second call, and downstream email confirmation. Nothing an agent needs to call 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 genuine meaning beyond the schema: the answers object must be keyed by field key obtained from enquiry_fields, and the confirmation token is specifically the value returned from step 1 after approval. It clarifies the token's provenance and lifecycle, which the schema alone does not.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('submits an enquiry to Saudi Company Setup Cost') and immediately bounds it with what it is NOT ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The two-step structure further disambiguates it from the discovery siblings enquiry_fields and 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use instructions for both invocations: Step 1 with answers + consent=true, Step 2 only if the person agrees, with the token. It also names the dependency on enquiry_fields for the answer keys, so the agent knows the sequencing relative to siblings.

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