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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses the validation pass, the returned summary/consent line/confirmation token, the requirement that the person approve before step 2, the outbound email, and that no provider sees the enquiry until the link is clicked. That is substantial side-effect and prerequisite disclosure for an unannotated 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?

Front-loaded with the purchase/quote disclaimer, then proceeds step-by-step; every sentence carries operational information. Slightly dense in one unbroken paragraph, and the consent sentence is quoted nearly verbatim from the schema's consent description, a small redundancy.

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 and a nested free-form 'answers' object, the description compensates by describing what step 1 returns and what step 2 produces. Field keys are delegated to the named sibling enquiry_fields, which is the correct division of labor, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further: it ties 'answers' to field keys sourced from the sibling enquiry_fields tool, spells out the consent condition, and — most usefully — explains that 'confirmation' is only supplied on step 2 after approval, which the schema does not convey.

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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry to CRM agency') and immediately draws the boundary that matters: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' Combined with the title, an agent can distinguish this from enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly sequences the two calls: step 1 with answers + consent=true to validate, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. It also states the gating condition for consent and the requirement that the person click an email link, so when-to-call and when-not-to-call are both covered.

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