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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses the two-step validate-then-submit flow, that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that submitting triggers an email with a mandatory click-through before any provider sees the details, and the exact consent semantics. These are side effects and workflow constraints an agent could not derive from the schema alone.

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 most important qualifier ('NOT a purchase') is front-loaded and each sentence carries procedural information. It is somewhat long and the consent wording is duplicated verbatim from the schema's consent description, which is minor redundancy rather than bloat.

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, but the description compensates by naming what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after step 2 (email with a required link). For a two-phase, consent-gated submission tool, this is complete enough to drive correct use.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning the schema does not: 'answers' must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, and 'confirmation' is a token obtained from step 1 only after approval. That sequencing context materially improves correct invocation of the optional third parameter.

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 Working Capital Quotes') and immediately disambiguates with negative scope ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which separates it from read-only siblings like enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does before 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?

It lays out explicit sequencing: Step 1 call with answers and consent=true, Step 2 call again with the same answers plus the confirmation token only after the person agrees. The gating condition ('only if the person agrees') and the prerequisite (token from step 1) are stated outright, 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.