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 the call is not a purchase, that step 1 only validates (no side effect), that step 2 triggers an email the person must click before any provider sees the data, and that consent distributes contact details to up to three operators. Side effects, the gating step and the double-opt-in are all made 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?

Front-loaded with the critical 'NOT a purchase' caveat and cleanly segmented into Step 1 and Step 2. It is long, and the consent text is quoted verbatim even though the same string already appears in the schema's consent description, which is mild redundancy.

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 two-stage mutation with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what each step returns, what must be shown to the user, the confirmation-token handoff, and the downstream verification email. No meaningful gaps remain for an agent to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining how the parameters interact across steps: answers keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent=true for both calls, and the confirmation token being the step-1 output needed only for step 2. This sequencing is not 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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry') and immediately defines boundaries with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. An agent can distinguish this write/flow tool from the read-only siblings enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol with the exact condition governing each call: step 1 validates and returns a token, step 2 fires only 'if the person agrees' with the summary. It also ties the field keys back to the enquiry_fields sibling, so the sequence and prerequisites are fully specified.

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