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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses validation behavior, the two-step confirmation-token flow, the email-with-link requirement, and that providers only see the enquiry after the link is clicked.

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 lengthy but purposeful, opening with the key caveat 'not a purchase/quote,' then structuring step 1 and step 2 clearly. The exact consent wording is necessary and all sentences earn their place, though it is somewhat dense.

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?

Explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), how to proceed to step 2, and what happens after submission (email link, provider visibility). This is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly even without an output schema or annotations.

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?

Though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, confirmation is the token from step 1, and consent is the exact quoted agreement text that must be true.

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?

Clearly states it submits an enquiry to Toll Blenders, explicitly negates that it is a purchase or guaranteed quote, and outlines a two-step submission process. This differentiates it from sibling tools like compare_* and enquiry_fields.

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?

Provides explicit step-by-step usage guidance: step 1 validates and returns a confirmation token; step 2 submits only after the person agrees. References enquiry_fields for answer keys and specifies consent=true requirements, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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