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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully discloses the two-step validation flow, the need for consent with the exact consent text, the confirmation token, the email with a click link, and that providers do not see the enquiry until the link is clicked. It also clearly states that submission is not a purchase and not a guaranteed quote, preventing false agent expectations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the non-purchase caveat, the two-step procedure, the consent line, and the email-click behavior are all essential. The critical warnings are front-loaded, and the step-by-step structure is 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 high-complexity tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent what to send in each step, what Step 1 returns, when to proceed to Step 2, what consent means, and what happens after submission. Nothing essential to correctly invoking the tool 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 baseline is 3, and the description adds meaningful workflow semantics beyond the schema. It explains that answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must be true, and the confirmation parameter is the token returned in Step 1. This clarifies how the three parameters relate to the two-step process.

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 Battery Storage Cost', which unambiguously states the action. It also draws clear boundaries by saying it is 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', and the title emphasizes the two-step submission workflow. This makes its purpose unmistakable even alongside sibling tools like 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 provides explicit step-by-step usage guidance: Step 1 with answers and consent=true, then Step 2 only if the person agrees, using the same answers plus the confirmation token. It also tells the agent to show the person the summary and consent line, and references enquiry_fields for the answer keys. This is clear operational guidance for when and how to call the tool.

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