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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary, consent line and token, that the token must be replayed, that submission triggers a double opt-in email link, and that no provider sees the data until that link is clicked. The consent scope is spelled out verbatim, so the agent knows exactly what it is asserting on the person's behalf.

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 purpose and the critical 'not a purchase' caveat, and the step sequence is easy to follow. It loses a point for re-quoting the full consent sentence, which is already carried verbatim in the schema's consent field 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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema, two-call mutation flow with a nested answers object, the description supplies everything needed: the step gating, the returned artifacts, the token round-trip, and the downstream email confirmation.

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 meaning the schema cannot: answers are keyed by field key obtained from the sibling enquiry_fields tool, and confirmation is the token returned by step 1 and is only passed after the person approves the summary. That workflow linkage is genuinely beyond the field descriptions.

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 (submits) plus the exact resource (an enquiry to Commercial Laundry Cost) and immediately negates the two most likely misreadings: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. An agent can distinguish it from enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which are clearly the discovery/definition siblings.

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 with the condition that gates step 2 ('only if the person agrees'), names the inputs each call requires, and states the when-not ('NOT a purchase'). Nothing about sequencing is left to inference.

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