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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly explains the two-step submission workflow, the consent requirement with the exact consent wording, the validation step, the confirmation token, and the email link the person must click before providers see the enquiry. This gives the agent a complete picture of side effects and sequencing.

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 given the two-step workflow and consent requirements. It is front-loaded with the most important warnings ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and structured clearly into Step 1 and Step 2, making the flow easy 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?

The tool is complex because of its two-step confirmation flow, consent handling, and external email verification step, yet the description covers all of it without requiring an output schema. It explains what each step returns, when to proceed, and what the consent requirement entails, so an agent has enough context to invoke the tool 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?

The schema already describes all three parameters, but the description adds critical usage semantics: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after the person agrees to the exact consent statement, and confirmation must come from step 1 after approval. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions and is directly actionable.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Bat Survey Cost' and explicitly distinguishes itself with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also clarifies the two-step nature, making it easy to tell apart from the sibling tools 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 description gives explicit step-by-step instructions: call with answers and consent=true, show the person the summary and consent line, then call again only if the person agrees with the same answers plus the confirmation token. It also references enquiry_fields as the source for answer keys, providing clear when and how to use the tool.

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