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 that data is shared with yacht charter companies and brokers, that an email confirmation link must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry, that step 1 validates and returns a summary plus token, and it quotes the exact consent text. Side effects, gating, and the two-call contract are all explicit.

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?

Purpose and the NOT-a-purchase disambiguation are front-loaded, then the two steps follow in order with no filler sentences. The only redundancy is the consent sentence, which is repeated verbatim in the schema's `consent` description; otherwise the length is justified by the two-step contract.

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 and no annotations exist, so the description must cover return values and side effects — and it does: it names the summary, consent line and confirmation token returned in step 1, and the email-verification flow after step 2. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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` is keyed by field keys coming from the sibling tool enquiry_fields, `consent` is tied to a specific quoted agreement, and `confirmation` is identified as the step-1 token that must be replayed in step 2. This links parameters to a workflow the schema alone does not express.

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 (submit an enquiry to Yacht Charter Quotes) and immediately scopes it with two negations — NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote — which separates it from any booking/purchase sibling. The two-step framing tells the agent exactly what kind of operation this is before it reads 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 ordered protocol: Step 1 call with answers + consent=true, show the person the summary and consent line; Step 2 call again with the same answers, consent=true and the confirmation token, and only if the person agrees. The precondition for step 2 and the consent gate are stated, 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.