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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly: it discloses that no purchase occurs, that validation returns a summary and token, that submission only happens on the second call, and that providers see nothing until the person clicks an emailed link. The exact consent wording is included, leaving no ambiguity about the human consent requirement.

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 detailed but every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, step 1, step 2, and the exact consent line. The two-step structure is front-loaded and reinforced by the title, making the flow easy to follow without excessive padding.

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?

Given the two-step interaction, nested answers object, and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains return values, the confirmation token, the email link behavior, and the consent text. An agent has everything it needs to invoke the tool correctly and to coordinate with the human user.

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?

Although the schema already has 100% coverage, the description adds crucial workflow meaning: answers are keyed by enquiry_fields keys, consent must be true only after the person agrees to the exact quoted statement, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1. This turns bare parameter names into an actionable interaction protocol.

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 clearly states the tool submits an enquiry to Sell My Business Quotes, explicitly distinguishing it from a purchase and from a guaranteed quote. The two-step process is named in the title and elaborated in the description, making the tool's purpose unmistakable relative to siblings like enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields.

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?

The description gives an explicit, step-by-step protocol: call first with answers and consent=true, show the summary and consent line, then call again with the same data plus the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It also tells the agent to key answers by field keys from enquiry_fields, effectively naming the prerequisite sibling tool.

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