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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote, requires explicit consent, results in an email with a link, and shares data with providers who may contact the person. These side effects could not be inferred from the schema.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: Step 1, Step 2, consent wording, and exclusions. It is front-loaded with the most decision-relevant facts (two steps, not a purchase, not guaranteed).

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description fully compensates: it covers the workflow state, side effects (email, provider visibility), required consent token, and next action. An agent can invoke and sequence calls correctly without additional context.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical workflow meaning: answers must be keyed by enquiry_fields keys, consent=true is the gate, and confirmation is the Step 1 token without which Step 2 submission must not happen.

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 verb ('Submits an enquiry'), a precise resource (Corp Tax Calculator), and clear exclusions ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields based on the text alone.

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?

Provides an explicit two-step workflow: first call with answers and consent=true, show the summary and consent line to the person, then call again with the same answers and the confirmation token only after agreement. It also tells the agent when NOT to treat this as a purchase and references enquiry_fields for keying answers.

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