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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the validation round-trip, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), that submission triggers an email requiring a click before any provider sees the data, and that details go to up to three named suppliers with a stop option. This is the side-effect and gating information an agent needs before performing an outward-facing, third-party-sharing write.

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 critical 'not a purchase' framing and walks the two steps in order. The verbatim consent paragraph (~55 words) substantially duplicates the consent property description in the schema, which is the main source of redundancy; otherwise the sentences earn their place.

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 three-parameter, no-output-schema tool with a nested answers object, it is complete: the description explains the two-phase call, the return of step 1, the consent gate, and the downstream email confirmation, so an agent can execute correctly without additional context.

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, and the description repeats the consent wording already present in the schema. It does add genuine semantics beyond the schema, though: answers must be keyed by field keys obtained from enquiry_fields, and confirmation is only valid as the token returned from step 1. That sequencing context lifts it above baseline.

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+resource ('Submits an enquiry to Software Pricing Index') and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. This clearly separates it from the compare_* siblings and the enquiry_* discovery tools (enquiry_fields, 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers + consent=true to validate, step 2 only after the person agrees, with the token. It also names the sibling that supplies the required input shape ('keyed by field key from enquiry_fields'). When-to-use, when-not-to-proceed, and the dependency on another tool are all stated.

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