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 validation on step 1, the returned summary/consent line/confirmation token, the double-submit guard via the token, the email double opt-in that gates provider visibility, and the fact that details go to up to three named firms with the person notified per firm. This is unusually complete for a mutation tool.

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?

Long but front-loaded and cleanly partitioned into Step 1 and Step 2, so the agent can scan for its current state. It loses a point for reproducing the full consent sentence verbatim when the schema already carries it, which is redundant text rather than added value.

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 each step returns and what happens downstream (email with a click-through link before any provider sees the enquiry). Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly in either state 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: answers must be keyed by field keys obtained from enquiry_fields, consent must be true at both steps, and confirmation is specifically the token returned by step 1 and only used after the person approves the summary. That sequencing is not obvious 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?

Names a specific verb and resource (submit an enquiry to Concrete Pumping Hire) and immediately fences off the two most likely misreadings: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling enquiry_fields by pointing at it as the source of the field keys.

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') and the exact arguments required at each step. It also states what the agent must do with step 1's output (show the summary and consent line), which is usage guidance no sibling provides.

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