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 step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 actually submits, and — critically — that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry. It also spells out what consent legally means, which is a side effect an agent must not fake.

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 most important disambiguation (NOT a purchase) and structured as step 1 / step 2, so it scans well. The verbatim consent sentence is long and duplicates the schema's consent description, but it is arguably load-bearing for a compliance-sensitive field.

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, so the description must explain both behavior and return shape — and it does, naming the step 1 return values (summary, consent line, token) and the step 2 outcome (email with a verification link). Nothing an agent needs to call 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. The description adds real value beyond the schema by defining the cross-parameter relationship — the same answers object is re-sent in step 2 alongside the confirmation token — and by pointing at enquiry_fields as the origin of the answer keys.

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 fences off the two most likely misreadings — not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote. It also references enquiry_fields as the source of answer keys, tying it to its siblings so an agent can place it in the family.

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 two-step procedure with the gating condition for each call: step 1 with answers+consent, then step 2 only if the person agrees, with the same answers plus the token. There is no ambiguity about when to invoke it or how to sequence the calls.

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