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 non-purchase/non-quote nature, that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 is irreversible submission, that an email confirmation click is required before any provider sees it, and the exact scope of consent (up to three fit-out firms, notification per firm, ability to stop). That is far beyond what any annotation could convey.

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 most important constraint (not a purchase) and cleanly numbered into Step 1 / Step 2, so an agent can parse the sequence at a glance. It loses a point for restating the long consent sentence that already appears verbatim in the consent parameter description.

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, and the description compensates by describing exactly what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what the person receives afterward. For a consent-gated, two-phase write operation with nested answers and no annotations, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the consent text is duplicated verbatim from the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds workflow meaning the schema cannot: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields and must be re-sent identically in step 2, and the confirmation token is only supplied on the second call after approval.

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 Commercial Kitchen Cost') and immediately bounds it with two explicit negations ('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 distinguish it from enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields without opening 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers and consent=true, then step 2 only 'if the person agrees', with the same answers plus the confirmation token. It also names the prerequisite (field keys come from enquiry_fields) and the gating condition (the person must click the emailed link before providers see anything).

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