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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses validation, the returned summary/consent line/token, the second-step submission, the email with a required click link, and the fact that providers see nothing before that click. It also quotes the exact consent wording.

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 long but every section earns its place: the non-purchase caveat is front-loaded, Steps 1 and 2 are clearly ordered, and the exact consent text is included because it must be shown to the person. No filler or repetition beyond what is operationally necessary.

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, the description explains what Step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token), what triggers Step 2, and the post-submission email/link behavior. It references the related enquiry_fields tool for answer keys, so an agent has everything needed 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 documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds workflow meaning beyond the schema by explaining the required ordering of answers+consent first, the source of the confirmation token, and that Step 2 must resend the same answers, justifying a 4.

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 the verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Catchment Checker,' and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), plus the title identifies human providers. This distinguishes it from the sibling checkout/quote-like actions even without naming them.

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?

It provides explicit workflow guidance: use Step 1 first to validate and obtain a confirmation token, then Step 2 only after the person agrees. It excludes purchases and guaranteed quotes, but it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like enquiry_describe or enquiry_fields, though it references enquiry_fields for keys.

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