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 that nothing is purchased, that step 1 is validation-only and returns a summary/consent line/token, that submission triggers an email with a required click before any provider sees the enquiry, and reproduces the exact consent text. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent could not infer from the 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 a single dense paragraph but is clearly front-loaded (what it is / what it is not) before the Step 1 / Step 2 breakdown. The quoted consent line is repeated content that adds length, but it is load-bearing since it must be shown verbatim to the person.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description still explains what each call returns and the required downstream user actions (show summary, obtain agreement, click email link). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by tying each parameter to the flow ('keyed by field key from enquiry_fields', consent=true meaning, and the confirmation token coming from step 1 after approval). It adds sequencing semantics rather than just restating the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to TelescopeCompareHQ') and immediately delimits scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also references the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of the answer keys, so the agent can distinguish it from the read-only dataset_* and enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields 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?

Usage is spelled out as an explicit two-step protocol: Step 1 call with answers+consent=true, Step 2 call again with the confirmation token 'only if the person agrees'. It also names the upstream dependency (field keys from enquiry_fields), leaving nothing to inference about when each call is appropriate.

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