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 well: it discloses that Step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that the agent must show the summary to the person, and crucially that submission only takes effect after the person clicks an emailed link before providers see anything. It also discloses the downstream behavior (contact details sent to up to three contractors, name emailed as details go to each firm, ability to stop further firms).

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 essential identity ('Submits an enquiry... NOT a purchase'), then sequences Step 1 / Step 2 clearly. It is long, but the length is driven by the verbatim consent text the agent must display, and each clause is load-bearing. Minor deduction for packing the consent quote inline rather than separating it.

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?

Given the two-step stateful flow, required nested 'answers' object, and absence of an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: sequencing, the token handoff, the display obligation, and the consent scope. Nothing material about invoking 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it ties 'answers' to field keys from enquiry_fields, is explicit that identical answers must be resubmitted in Step 2, and frames 'confirmation' as the token from Step 1 used only after approval. These flow constraints are 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+resource (submits an enquiry) and immediately delimits it with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', and names the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of field keys. An agent can distinguish this from enquiry_describe/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 condition for each call (Step 1 with answers+consent; Step 2 only if the person agrees, with the confirmation token), states the prerequisite (consent already obtained), and names the alternatives to avoid (it is not a purchase or guaranteed quote). Nothing is left to inference.

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