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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses validation, the returned summary/consent line/token, that the person must click an email link before any provider sees the data, and the exact consent scope (up to three agents, contact directly, opt-out). This is far beyond what the schema reveals.

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-loads the critical disambiguation ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and then structures the rest as Step 1 / Step 2. The embedded consent text is long but is the literal agreement the caller must confirm, so it earns its place.

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 supplies everything an agent needs: the two-call protocol, the consent semantics, the post-submission email-link gate, and the provider-disclosure scope. Nothing required 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, but the description adds real meaning: 'answers' is keyed by field key from the enquiry_fields sibling, and 'confirmation' is the token from step 1 used only after approval. It clarifies the inter-parameter dependency (token required only in step 2) that the schema alone does not convey.

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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry') and immediately disambiguates the outcome ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which is exactly what an agent would otherwise confuse with a checkout or quote tool. Distinguishes itself from siblings like calculate and enquiry_fields by describing the two-step submission flow.

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?

Explicitly defines the two-step sequence: step 1 with answers+consent to validate and get a token, step 2 only after the person approves, adding the token. It gives the precise conditions for each call and the gating requirement (person must agree), leaving nothing to inference.

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