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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that nothing is submitted until step 2, that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the data, and that details go to up to three contractors. These are the mutation, privacy and verification behaviors an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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-loaded with the most important framing ('NOT a purchase') and organized as Step 1 / Step 2, so it reads cleanly. It is long, and the consent sentence is quoted verbatim and also duplicated in the schema's 'consent' description, which is an acceptable but real redundancy.

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 two-phase mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return of step 1, the required user interaction, and the post-submission email verification. Nothing an agent needs to drive the flow correctly 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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'answers' must be keyed by field key from the enquiry_fields tool, and 'confirmation' only applies on the second call after approval. That cross-tool dependency and the conditional presence of the third parameter are not derivable from the schema alone.

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') plus the recipient ('to Borehole Drilling Cost') and immediately negates the likely misreading ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This distinguishes it from the informational siblings enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which do not submit anything.

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 spells out the exact call sequence: step 1 with answers + consent=true, then step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the token added. That is unusually clear when-to-call guidance, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the two sibling tools an agent might otherwise reach for.

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