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: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary, consent line and confirmation token; that step 2 performs the actual submission; that an email confirmation link gates provider visibility; and the literal consent text. It also clarifies the non-committal nature (not a purchase, not a quote), which is the key behavioral trait an agent must not misrepresent.

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?

Well front-loaded — the 'NOT a purchase' disclaimer leads, followed by the two-step flow in order. Dense and largely waste-free, though the embedded quoted consent text makes it longer than strictly necessary; that length is justified by the compliance requirement.

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, so the description must describe returns itself, and it does: step 1 returns a summary, consent line and confirmation token to show the user; step 2 triggers an email requiring a click. All gates, prerequisites and outcomes needed to invoke this two-step tool correctly are present.

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 a baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds real meaning: answers are 'keyed by field key from enquiry_fields', consent requires the specific quoted agreement, and confirmation is the step-1 token supplied only after the person approves the summary. It exceeds what the schema alone conveys, though it does not enumerate answer types.

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 (submits) and resource (an enquiry to human providers), and immediately negates the two most likely misreadings — 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also cross-references the sibling enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe's field keys, so an agent can distinguish it from the read-only enquiry siblings without opening schemas.

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 stages the usage: Step 1 with answers+consent, then Step 2 only if the person agrees, with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The when-not condition (do not submit before consent/approval) and the downstream gate (email link must be clicked before a provider sees it) are both stated rather than left to inference.

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