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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the two-phase validation/submission behavior, that step 1 is non-committal, what step 2 actually triggers (email with a link the person must click before any provider sees it), and the exact scope of consent (up to three firms, direct contact, notification and opt-out). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 critical constraint ('NOT a purchase') is front-loaded and the step sequence is tight and scannable. The only waste is the full consent sentence quoted verbatim, which already appears in the schema's consent description — a small duplication that costs tokens without new information.

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 and no annotations, yet the description still explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 produces (submission plus a verification email). For a two-step, nested-object tool with 3 parameters, nothing an agent needs 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' must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must be true and represents a specific agreed statement, and 'confirmation' is defined as the token returned by step 1 after approval. It clarifies the parameter's provenance rather than merely restating the schema.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('submits an enquiry to BioBricks') and immediately distinguishes it from adjacent-but-different actions ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). An agent can separate this from dataset_* and enquiry_* siblings without opening a 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 prescribes the exact call sequence: Step 1 with answers and consent=true, show the returned summary/consent line to the person, then Step 2 only if the person agrees, passing the confirmation token. Conditions for each call and the gating between them are explicit, with no inference required.

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