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 thoroughly: it describes validation, returned summary, consent line, confirmation token, email confirmation link, and that providers cannot see the enquiry until the person clicks. It also clarifies 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 front-loaded with what the tool is not, then clearly separates Step 1 and Step 2. It is appropriately sized for a two-step consent flow, though the quoted consent sentence duplicates schema text and makes the paragraph dense.

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 complex two-step tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the complete flow: validation, required consent, token acquisition, final submission, and the email confirmation gate before provider visibility. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent=true is required for both steps, and the confirmation token comes only after the person approves the step 1 summary. These contextual details go beyond the schema's field-level 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 names a specific verb (submits) and resource (an enquiry to Asbestos Survey Cost), and immediately distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also ties the tool to the sibling enquiry_fields for answer keys, so an agent can identify it without opening the 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?

It explicitly lays out a two-step workflow with clear conditions: Step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, and Step 2 is only called if the person agrees. The gating on consent and the confirmation token removes ambiguity about when to invoke each step.

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