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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses validation-then-confirmation behavior, that a summary/consent line/token are returned, that the person must click an email link before any provider sees the enquiry, and that details go to up to three named firms with an opt-out. Side effects and the consent contract are spelled out.

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-loaded with the critical 'not a purchase' caveat and cleanly structured as Step 1 / Step 2, so the reader gets the flow fast. It loses a point for quoting the full consent sentence verbatim, which is already present in the consent parameter's schema description.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description explains what Step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens downstream (email link, provider visibility). For a nested-object, third-party-data-sharing mutation, nothing essential 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning the schema lacks: which parameters belong to Step 1 versus Step 2, that answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, and that the confirmation token is only supplied after the person approves the summary. That sequencing context is genuinely beyond 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?

States a specific verb+resource (submits an enquiry) and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', which separates it from the sibling enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields tools that only describe or list fields. An agent knows exactly what this tool accomplishes without opening the schema.

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 explicit when-to-use for both steps: Step 1 with answers + consent=true to validate, Step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. It also routes the agent to the sibling enquiry_fields for field keys, so the sequencing and prerequisites are fully specified.

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