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 it validates rather than purchases, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token), that the person must be shown the summary and consent line before proceeding, that a verification email must be clicked before any provider sees the data, and the exact consent wording.

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' framing and then sequenced by step, so the flow is easy to follow. The verbatim consent sentence is repeated inside the schema description, which is mild redundancy in an otherwise tight 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining exactly what step 1 returns and what step 2 triggers downstream (submission and the verification email). An agent has everything needed to drive both steps 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 real meaning: 'consent' is tied to the verbatim agreement text, 'confirmation' is explicitly the step-1 token reused in step 2, and 'answers' is described as keyed by field key from enquiry_fields.

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 scopes what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling helpers enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe, which it references as a data source.

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?

The two-step protocol is spelled out: step 1 with answers + consent=true to validate and obtain a token, step 2 only if the person agrees, with the same answers plus the token. It also names enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, so the agent knows the prerequisite call.

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