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 nothing is purchased or guaranteed, that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 requires the token, and that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry. Scope limits ('up to three surveyors') and revocation ('can stop any more firms') are also stated.

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-loads the most important disambiguation ('NOT a purchase') and then walks the two steps in order, which is the right structure for a gated flow. It is long and the full consent text is reproduced verbatim from the schema, which is mild duplication, but the length is otherwise justified by the consent mechanics.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must cover return values, and it does: step 1 returns a summary, consent line and confirmation token, and step 2 returns a submitted enquiry that triggers a confirmation email. Combined with the nested 'answers' object and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to drive the flow correctly.

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 real semantics the schema lacks: 'confirmation' is only used in step 2 and must be the token returned by step 1, and consent must be tied to the person actually having read the quoted consent text. That is meaningfully more than the field-level descriptions provide.

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 to Asbestos Survey Cost') and immediately draws the key boundary against likely confusion: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' An agent can distinguish this from the read-only siblings (enquiry_fields, enquiry_describe) 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 explicit two-step usage with the exact condition that gates step 2 ('only if the person agrees'), and points at enquiry_fields as the source of the field keys. It also states the prerequisite for consent=true, so there is no inference left about when it is safe to call.

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