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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges it: validation behavior, what is returned at step 1 (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the two-call gating requirement, and the email-confirmation-before-provider-visibility behavior. It also spells out the exact consent text, which an agent must relay accurately.

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 critical 'not a purchase' caveat and the two-step structure are front-loaded, and each sentence carries procedural weight. It is dense for a single paragraph, but the length is justified by the mandated two-call flow and verbatim consent language.

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, yet the description explains the step-1 return values and the step-2 side effect; with no annotations, it also covers the behavioral and consent requirements. An agent has everything needed to run both calls 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 cross-tool meaning beyond the schema: 'answers' are keyed by field key drawn from enquiry_fields, and 'confirmation' is tied to the step-1 return, explaining its role in the workflow rather than just its type.

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') and immediately negates the likely misreadings ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It is clearly distinguished from siblings like enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe, which are the read/prep tools referenced here.

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?

Explicitly prescribes when to call each time: step 1 with answers + consent=true, step 2 only after the person approves, with the confirmation token. It also names enquiry_fields as the source of field keys and states the precondition for consent, leaving no sequencing to inference.

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