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 the validation step, the confirmation-token gate, that submission triggers an email, that the recipient must click a link before any provider sees the data, and the verbatim consent text. These are exactly the side effects an agent must know.

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 negative scoping, then the two steps in order. The embedded consent quote is lengthy but functionally required, since consent=true depends on the person agreeing to exactly that text. Slightly dense but every part 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after step 2 (email + link gate). For a nested-object, two-phase tool this is complete enough to call 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 baseline is 3; the description adds value by tying 'answers' to field keys from enquiry_fields and clarifying that 'confirmation' is the token returned by step 1 and used only after approval. That sequencing context is not fully derivable from the schema alone.

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 it negatively — 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote' — which separates it from transactional siblings. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: when to call with answers+consent, what step 1 returns, and that step 2 happens 'only if the person agrees'. It also cross-references enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, routing the agent to the correct sibling.

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