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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It reveals that step 1 validates and returns a summary and token, that step 2 actually submits the enquiry, that an email with a clickable link is sent, and that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the link. The exact consent wording is also included. No hidden behaviors remain.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the most important caveats, separates the two steps clearly, and ends with the exact consent statement. The structure mirrors the actual call sequence, making it easy for an agent to follow.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all essential context: the two-step flow, what step 1 returns, what step 2 requires, the email link requirement, and the consent text. It even references enquiry_fields for the answer keys, tying it to its siblings. Nothing critical 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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes answers, consent, and confirmation. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must be true and tied to a specific agreement text, and confirmation must be the token returned from step 1. This clarifies how the parameters relate to the workflow.

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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Basement Excavation Cost') and immediately distinguishes it from related actions: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also clearly signals the two-step nature, which separates it from the sibling enquiry tools. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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 description gives explicit step-by-step invocation guidance: call once with answers and consent=true, show the summary and consent line, then call again only if the person agrees, adding the confirmation token. It also provides a clear exclusion ('not a purchase'). It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe or enquiry_fields, but the workflow guidance is strong enough for correct use.

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