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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses validation-on-first-call, the returned summary/consent line/token, the requirement that the person click an email link before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact legal meaning of consent. These are non-obvious side effects an agent must know before invoking.

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 most important disambiguation ('NOT a purchase') and is organized as Step 1 / Step 2, so it reads cleanly. It is long and repeats the consent text verbatim from the schema, which is defensible (the agent must display it) but costs a little density.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing what each step returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what the end user receives (an email link with a click-to-confirm gate). For a nested-object, consent-sensitive, two-call flow, an agent has everything needed both to call it and to sequence it correctly.

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 are keyed by field key from the enquiry_fields sibling, consent must be set only after the person has read the quoted text, and confirmation is the token returned by step 1 rather than any arbitrary string. That exceeds the schema's own wording.

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 Scaffolding Cost Calculator') and immediately fences off the adjacent-but-different actions ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). Combined with the title's 'two steps', an agent can distinguish this from calculate/enquiry_fields without opening the 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 an explicit two-step protocol: Step 1 with answers + consent=true, then Step 2 only after the person approves, with the same answers plus the confirmation token. It also names the precondition for consent and the gating condition ('only if the person agrees'), leaving nothing to inference.

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