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 validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/confirmation token, the post-submission email double opt-in before any provider sees the data, and the exact scope of third-party sharing. Side effects and the consent requirement are fully surfaced.

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?

Well front-loaded with the negation first, then the numbered steps. It is dense and the long consent quotation is repeated from the schema, but every remaining sentence conveys operative behavior rather than filler.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must cover returns and safety, and it does: it names what step 1 returns, what step 2 triggers, and the privacy consequences. An agent has everything needed to drive both calls 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 meaning: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true, and confirmation is the token only obtainable from step 1 after approval. The consent wording overlaps the schema's own consent description, costing a point.

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+resource ('Submits an enquiry to Battery Storage Cost') and immediately negates the two most likely misreadings ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It is clearly distinguishable from the read-only 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?

It prescribes exactly when to call each step: step 1 with answers and consent=true, step 2 only if the person agrees, with the same answers plus the confirmation token. This is an explicit when/when-not sequence with nothing left to inference.

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