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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: it covers validation behavior, the step-1 return values, the email-with-link side effect, and that providers only see the enquiry after the link is clicked. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: the most important caveat is front-loaded, and the remaining text covers the two required interactions and the consent definition. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema is present.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description fully compensates: it explains prerequisites, the exact call sequence, what step 1 returns, when to proceed, and what side effect occurs after submission. An agent has enough context to invoke 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning the schema alone does not convey: answers are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent maps to a specific consent line, and confirmation is the token produced by step 1. These cross-parameter relationships are essential for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Software Pricing Index') and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This makes the tool's role distinct from the sibling comparison and enquiry-description tools.

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 an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers and consent=true returns a summary and confirmation token for user approval, and step 2 is only to be performed after the person agrees, with the same answers plus the token. It also states the exact condition under which consent=true is valid.

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