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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses the two-step protocol, that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that nothing reaches providers until the person clicks an emailed link, and exactly what consent authorises (contact details to up to three named specialists). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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-loaded with the negative framing and a clean Step 1/Step 2 structure, so the critical path is easy to scan. The final consent paragraph is long and largely duplicates the consent field description in the schema, which is mild redundancy rather than waste.

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, so the description must explain returns — and it does, describing step 1's summary, consent line and token, and step 2's outcome (submission plus an email link gating provider visibility). Combined with the parameter guidance, an agent has everything needed to run both calls 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 semantics: answers must be keyed by the field key from enquiry_fields, and the confirmation token is specifically 'from step 1, after the person has approved the summary'. It clarifies when consent must be true rather than just what it means, going beyond the schema's own text.

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 Classic Car Restoration Cost) and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also ties itself to the sibling enquiry_fields by naming it as the source of the field keys, so an agent can place it in the flow without opening other schemas.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the when: Step 1 with answers + consent=true, and Step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. It names the trigger condition for the second call and rules out purchase/quote interpretations, 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.