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 well: it discloses the two-phase flow, that step 1 returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 triggers an email requiring a click before providers see anything, and what consent actually authorizes (details sent to up to three suppliers, notified per firm, stoppable). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for an irreversible submission.

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 critical not-a-purchase caveat and the step ordering, and every sentence does work. It loses a point for restating the full consent boilerplate verbatim, which is already present in the schema's consent description.

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 nested-object, multi-step, irreversible submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the flow, the gating condition, the returned artifacts, and downstream effects. Nothing needed 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'answers' are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, and 'confirmation' is explicitly the step-1 token used only on the second call. It clarifies the temporal relationship between the two parameters that the schema alone only hints at.

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 to Which Field Software') and immediately disambiguates from what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). An agent can distinguish it from enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe without opening any 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?

Explicitly lays out the two-step protocol: step 1 with answers + consent=true, then step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. It states when to call each time and the precondition (person approval) that gates the second call.

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