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 that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 is the actual submission, that the person must click an email link before any provider sees the enquiry, and it quotes the full consent text. This is rich, specific behavioral context that an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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 two-step flow is front-loaded and logically ordered, with the consent text block clearly separated. It is longer than average but every clause carries operative information; the quoted consent text is necessary because it is the literal agreement the person must accept.

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?

The tool is a stateful, multi-step, consent-gated submission with no annotations and no output schema. The description supplies the missing state machine, the consent semantics, the email-verification gate, and the validation-only nature of step 1, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by mapping 'answers' to keys from the sibling enquiry_fields and by clarifying that 'consent' must be true and that 'confirmation' is the token returned by step 1 and only used in step 2. It does not add syntax details, keeping it 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('submits an enquiry to Cold Room Installation Cost') and explicitly negates the two most plausible misfires: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' This distinguishes it from any sibling that merely describes or lists 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?

Spells out the exact two-step flow: step 1 with answers and consent=true to get a token, step 2 only after the person agrees. It names the precondition (the person must approve the summary) and the alternative is implicit in the two-step gating, 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.