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 well: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary, consent line and confirmation token, that step 2 actually submits, that consent triggers a double opt-in email link the person must click before any provider sees the data, and that details go to up to three contractors who contact the person directly with per-firm notification and opt-out. This is rich, non-obvious operational and privacy behavior.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core distinction and then the two steps, so an agent can act without reading to the end. The fully quoted consent text is lengthy and largely duplicates the schema's consent description, which is the main source of redundancy, but it is not padding.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by explaining what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token) and what happens after step 2 (submission plus a verification email). Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing, including the required confirmation-token handoff between the two calls.

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, 'consent' must be true only when the person agreed, and 'confirmation' is the step-1 token used only in step 2 after approval. This sequencing meaning is not derivable from the schema alone.

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 verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Commercial Drainage Quotes') and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which distinguishes it from any purchase/quote sibling. It also frames the tool as a two-step flow, so an agent knows exactly what invoking it does.

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 gives explicit conditional guidance for each step: call step 1 with answers and consent=true, then only call step 2 'only if the person agrees', passing the token. It references the field key source (enquiry_fields) implicitly and rejects the purchase interpretation. It stops short of naming the sibling tools enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe as the mandatory prerequisites, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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