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: it discloses the validation pass, what Step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), that the enquiry is not visible to providers until the person clicks an emailed link, and the exact consent scope (up to three firms, per-firm notification, opt-out). This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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 purpose and the not-a-purchase caveat, then walks the two steps in order. The long verbatim consent quote is justified because it is the exact wording the person must agree to, though it makes the entry longer than strictly needed.

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 output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover returns and side effects — and it does, explaining the Step 1 return payload, the confirmation token round-trip, the email verification requirement, and the provider-visibility gate. An agent has everything needed to drive both steps 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 real meaning: answers are keyed by field key from the sibling enquiry_fields tool, consent must be true and is tied to the quoted consent text, and confirmation is specifically the token returned by Step 1 after the person approves the summary.

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+resource ('Submits an enquiry to CCTV Installation Cost') and immediately bounds scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote,' which separates it from any transaction tool. The 'submit' action is also plainly distinct from the read-oriented siblings 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: Step 1 with answers+consent=true to validate, Step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. When to call each variant and the gating condition are spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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