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 well: it discloses that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, that step 1 only validates, that step 2 triggers submission and a double opt-in email requiring a click before providers see anything, and the exact consent text. It leaves a few gaps – auth requirements, whether the confirmation token expires, and what happens on a failed validation or a repeated step-2 call.

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 most decision-relevant fact (enquiry, not purchase) is front-loaded, and every sentence carries information about the protocol. It is dense and slightly run-on, packing both steps and the consent wording into one paragraph, but nothing is wasted.

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 output schema, the description correctly compensates by stating what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after step 2 (email with a verification link). For a nested-object, two-step mutation this is complete enough for an agent to execute correctly.

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 meaning the schema cannot: it explains the two-phase sequencing of the confirmation token (only sent after step 1 and only used in step 2), and ties answers to the field keys from enquiry_fields. That is genuine added semantics beyond the parameter 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Cost SEO') and immediately carves out what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It is clearly distinguishable from the discovery siblings enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which gather information rather than submit it.

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?

Usage is spelled out as an explicit two-step protocol with the condition that gates step 2 ('only if the person agrees'), plus the requirement to show the summary and consent line to the person. It also points to enquiry_fields as the source of the field keys used in answers.

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