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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It explains that the first call only validates and returns a summary/consent/token, that the second call actually submits, and that a person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry. It also discloses the exact consent text and clarifies non-binding status.

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 appropriately detailed for a two-step stateful workflow and is organized with clear Step 1/Step 2 markers. It slightly repeats the consent text that already appears in the schema, but that repetition is acceptable given that the agent must show the exact consent line to the user.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the full call sequence, the required state to carry over between calls, the return values of step 1, and the post-submission email-link behavior. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and manage the human approval step.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, the confirmation token comes from the step-1 response, and consent must be explicitly tied to the quoted agreement text. This fully compensates for any ambiguity in the raw parameter names.

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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Cyber Essentials Cost') and immediately disambiguates what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also clearly distinguishes the two-step nature of the operation, making it easy to separate from the sibling enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields tools.

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?

The description gives an explicit, sequenced usage protocol: Step 1 call with answers and consent=true, show the summary and consent line, then Step 2 call again with the same data plus the confirmation token only after the person agrees. It also names enquiry_fields as the source for the answer keys, which helps the agent know what to do before invoking this tool.

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