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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses that step 1 does not submit anything, that the enquiry is only visible to providers after the person clicks an emailed link, and it quotes the exact consent line. It even instructs the agent on required user interaction ('show the person the summary and the consent line'). No annotation contradiction exists.

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 dense but every sentence carries necessary operational information, and the key disambiguation ('NOT a purchase') is front-loaded. However, it is formatted as one long run-on paragraph; splitting step 1 and step 2 into distinct sentences or bullets would improve scanability without losing content.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description tells the agent everything needed to invoke it correctly: what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the exact condition for proceeding to step 2, the consent requirement, and the post-submission email-verification behavior. Nothing essential for selecting or calling this tool 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 genuine value: it ties answers to 'field key from enquiry_fields', explains that confirmation is the step-1 token only used after approval, and clarifies the meaning of consent=true with the exact consent text. This goes beyond the schema's 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 clear resource (an enquiry to human providers), and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also captures the defining two-step nature of the operation, which clearly separates it from siblings 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 protocol is spelled out explicitly: step 1 validates and returns a summary/token; step 2 is only to be invoked 'if the person agrees' and passes the confirmation token. It also names the source of answer keys (enquiry_fields) and the condition for consent, leaving no ambiguity about when each call is appropriate.

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