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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the two-step validation flow, the exact consent wording, the fact that an email with a clickable link is sent, and that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the link. It also warns that submission is not a purchase and not a guaranteed quote.

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?

Though the description is long, every sentence contributes essential operational or safety information. The opening sentence front-loads the core purpose and exclusions, and the step-by-step flow is clear and sequential. The detail is justified given the two-step consent process and email verification step.

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 description fully covers the tool's behavior, the required parameters, the two-step sequence, consent requirements, and the post-submission email flow. Since no output schema exists, the description appropriately explains what step 1 returns: a summary, consent line, and confirmation token. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 describes each parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that confirmation is the token returned in step 1, and that consent must reflect the specific consent text. This meaningfully supplements the schema rather than merely repeating it.

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 explicitly states the tool 'Submits an enquiry to Commercial Kitchen Cost' and immediately clarifies it is 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' This gives a specific verb, resource, and scope, and clearly differentiates the tool from a purchase action. The sibling tools are about describing and fields, so this submission tool is unambiguous.

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?

The description provides a precise two-step protocol: call first with answers and consent=true to receive a summary and confirmation token, then call again only if the person agrees, including the token. It also references enquiry_fields for answer keys, giving the agent concrete guidance on where supporting information comes from. This is explicit, actionable usage guidance.

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