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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It thoroughly covers the two-step nature, the requirement for consent, the consent wording, the confirmation token flow, and the fact that the enquiry is only visible to providers after the person clicks the emailed link. This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure.

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 description is longer than typical but every element earns its place: the non-purchase caveat, step-by-step flow, consent line, confirmation token, and email-link gating. It is front-loaded with the core action and organized with clear Step 1/Step 2 structure, so the density is justified.

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 involves a multi-step workflow with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description fully equips the agent: it explains what step 1 returns, what the agent must show the person, when to call again, and what happens after submission. Given the complexity, nothing essential 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 input schema already describes all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true and match the exact consent wording, and confirmation is the step-1 token reused in step 2. This goes beyond the schema by explaining how the parameters fit into the two-step lifecycle.

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 action ('Submits an enquiry to Commercial Laundry Cost') and clearly distinguishes it from a purchase or quote. The title and two-step framing give the agent a clear understanding of what the tool achieves and differentiate it from the sibling tools that describe or provide enquiry 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?

The description gives explicit two-step usage instructions: first validate with answers and consent, then submit only after the person agrees and returns the confirmation token. It also clearly states what the tool is not for ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide a comparative routing rule.

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