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 that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 actually submits, that the person must click an email link before any provider sees the enquiry, and defines exactly what consent means. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the negative scoping, then walks the two steps in order. It is somewhat long and the consent sentence is duplicated almost verbatim in the schema's consent description, but no sentence 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?

For a two-step, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return values of step 1 (summary, consent line, token) and the post-submission email flow. An agent has everything needed to call both steps 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 real meaning: 'answers' is keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, 'confirmation' is the token produced by step 1 after approval, and consent's exact semantics are restated. It goes beyond the schema's field-level 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+resource ('Submits an enquiry to CRM for trades') and immediately bounds scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It references the sibling enquiry_fields for the key source, so an agent can distinguish it from the describe/fields tools without opening a 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?

Gives explicit when/when-not guidance: step 1 is called with answers and consent=true for validation, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' and requires the token from step 1. The conditional gating between the two calls is spelled out rather than implied.

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