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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses what step 1 returns (validated summary, consent line, confirmation token), that the enquiry is not visible to providers until the person clicks an emailed link, and that it goes to at most three chosen sites. Nothing about side effects or consequences is left to inference.

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 critical distinction ('NOT a purchase') is front-loaded and the step ordering is easy to follow. It loses a point for pasting the full consent wording verbatim, which is already present in the schema's consent description — a redundant block in an otherwise efficient text.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover the return contract and the side effects; it does both by describing step 1's response payload and the post-submission email-verification flow. Nothing an agent needs to drive the two-call sequence 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 100%, so the 3 baseline applies, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that answers are keyed by the field key from enquiry_fields and that the confirmation token originates from step 1's response and is only supplied after the person approves the summary. How the parameters interconnect across the two calls is genuine added value.

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) and resource (an enquiry to Caravan Storage Prices) and immediately negates the most likely misreading: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It is unmistakably distinct from the read-only siblings enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe.

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 an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers + consent=true, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The gating condition for each invocation is spelled out, along with the required human-in-the-loop display of the summary and consent line.

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