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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, the requirement that the person clicks an email link before providers see anything, and the exact consent semantics. It also clarifies that providers contact the person directly, which are non-obvious side effects.

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-loads the critical framing ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and structures the flow as Step 1 / Step 2, which makes it scannable. The long verbatim consent quote consumes space, but it is legally load-bearing text that the agent must show, so it earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain returns, and it does (summary, consent line, confirmation token, downstream email). For a nested-object, multi-step mutation flow with no annotations, this is complete enough for an agent to execute 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 genuine meaning: it explains that `answers` are keyed by field key from `enquiry_fields`, that `consent=true` is required in both steps, and that `confirmation` is the token returned by step 1 after approval. That is real semantic value beyond the schema text.

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 (submits an enquiry) and resource (enquiry to Business Valuation Cost), and immediately disambiguates scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' The two-step framing clarifies what the tool actually is versus a single transactional call to any sibling.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-call guidance for both steps: step 1 with answers + consent, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. It also points to the sibling `enquiry_fields` as the source of the field keys, so the agent knows how to construct the call.

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