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. It explains the validation flow, the summary and consent line returned, the confirmation token, the requirement for the person to agree, and the email link click requirement before providers see the enquiry. It even quotes the exact consent text.

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. It front-loads the key distinction ('NOT a purchase'), then organizes the two steps in a clear sequence, with the consent line included because it is essential for correct invocation.

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-step submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what step 1 returns, how to proceed to step 2, what the final outcome is, and what the person must do before submission is valid.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds workflow meaning beyond the schema by specifying which parameters are used in which step and when confirmation is required, but some content, such as 'keyed by field key' and the consent text, duplicates what the schema already states.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Submits an enquiry') and resource ('Borehole Drilling Cost'), and explicitly says it is NOT a purchase or guaranteed quote. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, even though the verb makes the distinction fairly obvious.

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 an explicit two-step usage protocol: step 1 with answers and consent, step 2 with the confirmation token only after the person agrees. It also states when not to use it ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which gives clear usage boundaries.

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