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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses validation behavior, the step 1 return values (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the requirement to show these to the user, and the step 2 outcome of an email with a link that providers only see after the link is clicked.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and exclusions, then organized into Step 1 and Step 2 with no redundant sentences. The quoted consent text is long but necessary, and every sentence contributes either to the flow, the consent requirement, or the outcome.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description is complete enough to guide correct usage: it explains what step 1 returns, what to show the user, when to proceed, what to pass in step 2, and what happens after submission. An agent has all required information to orchestrate the two-step flow 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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the step sequencing: step 1 uses answers and consent=true, step 2 adds the confirmation token, and answers are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields. It also reinforces the exact consent wording, going slightly beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Campervan Conversion Cost' and explicitly clarifies what it is NOT ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The two-step flow is described clearly, so the tool's role is unambiguous and easily distinguished from siblings 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 gives explicit when-to-use instructions: call step 1 with answers and consent=true, then only call step 2 if the person agrees, passing the same answers, consent=true, and the confirmation token. It also provides a when-not via 'NOT a purchase' and explains the consent precondition with the exact line the person must have agreed to.

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