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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses the two-step protocol, validation, the returned summary/consent/token, the email link requirement, and the exact consent wording the person must agree to, giving the agent a clear behavioral model.

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 longer than average but every sentence contributes necessary procedural or consent-related detail. It is front-loaded with the critical 'NOT a purchase' clarification and organized into clear Step 1/Step 2 actions, though the title already conveys some of this information.

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?

Given the two-step interaction, mandatory consent, and absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what is returned at each step, the exact condition for proceeding, and the downstream email-link behavior, leaving no critical ambiguity for an agent deciding how to call the tool.

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?

The schema already fully describes all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining how answers should be keyed from enquiry_fields, why consent must be true, and how the confirmation token from step 1 is reused in step 2.

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 clearly states that the tool 'Submits an enquiry' to Trades Software Picker, immediately distinguishing it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also differentiates itself from the sibling tools by focusing on submission rather than comparison or field listing, and reinforces the two-step nature.

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 description provides explicit sequencing: call first with answers and consent=true, show the summary, then call again with the confirmation token only after agreement. It also points to enquiry_fields for valid answer keys, but it does not explicitly name when to prefer this tool over each sibling or state exclusions beyond 'not a purchase.'

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