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 thoroughly details the validation step, the consent requirement, the email notification, the delayed provider visibility, and the fact that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, so an agent understands the side effects and constraints.

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?

Although the description is long, it is densely packed with necessary procedural detail and clearly structured by Step 1 and Step 2. The quoted consent line is included verbatim, and there is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description fully compensates by stating what each call returns: a summary, consent line, and confirmation token in step 1, and submission plus email follow-up in step 2. The two-step flow, consent semantics, and provider-visibility condition are all specified, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call the tool 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?

The schema already covers all three parameters, which sets a baseline of 3, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains that answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that consent must match the exact quoted consent line, and that the confirmation token must come from step 1 and be reused in step 2.

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 states a specific action and resource: it submits an enquiry to Card Machine Pricing. It explicitly distinguishes itself from a purchase and a guaranteed quote, and the two-step nature is made clear from the start, which separates it from sibling tools 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 an explicit two-step usage protocol: first call validates and returns a summary and confirmation token; second call is only made after the person agrees, reusing the token. It also clarifies that the enquiry is not visible to providers until the emailed link is clicked, giving clear guidance on when and how to proceed.

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