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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so thoroughly: it reveals validation, step-1 return values, the second-call side effect, the emailed link requirement, and the exact consent wording. It also sets correct expectations by clarifying that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote.

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 description is well-organized as Step 1 and Step 2, with important caveats front-loaded. It loses one point because it repeats the exact consent text already in the schema and restates the title's 'not a purchase' caveat, creating minor redundancy in an otherwise efficient explanation.

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-step, consent-gated tool with no output schema, the description provides everything needed to invoke both steps correctly, including what step 1 returns and what step 2 requires. It also covers the human-approval and email-link conditions that determine whether the enquiry is actually visible to providers.

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?

Even with 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful workflow semantics: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent requires the exact quoted agreement, and confirmation must come from step 1 and be passed on the second call with the same answers. These step dependencies go beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('submits'), a specific target ('Agricultural Building Cost'), and explicitly negates confusion ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It clearly identifies this as the submission action, distinct from sibling tools like enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields.

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?

The two-step workflow is explicit: call first with answers and consent=true, show the person the returned summary and consent line, then call again only if the person agrees, reusing the same answers and adding the confirmation token. It also references enquiry_fields for answer keys and explains that provider visibility requires the emailed link to be clicked.

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