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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden and exceeds expectations: it discloses that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, that consent must be explicitly true, that validation occurs, that a confirmation token is returned and must be used in a second call, and that an email verification step gates provider visibility. This level of behavioral detail is rare and highly valuable for a stateful, multi-step operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, then proceeds logically through the two-step process. It includes the full consent text, which is lengthy but necessary for legal and operational clarity; however, this could be slightly condensed by referencing the schema's consent description instead of repeating it verbatim. The overall structure is clear and every sentence serves a purpose, but the verbatim consent repetition slightly reduces conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity of a two-step submission with consent, token, and email verification, and the lack of an output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool does, how to call it correctly in both steps, what the user must see and agree to, and what happens after submission. No critical information for an agent to invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents the three parameters in detail. However, the description adds contextual meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'answers' should be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields (referencing a sibling tool), that 'consent' must be true and what the consent entails (with the exact consent text), and that 'confirmation' is the token from step 1. This supplements the schema's parameter descriptions, though the schema itself already covers most semantics.

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 Damp Survey Prices') and immediately clarifies scope by distinguishing it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. This precision allows an agent to differentiate it from siblings like enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe, which likely handle form definition and metadata respectively.

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 provides explicit step-by-step usage instructions, including when to call (Step 1 with answers and consent=true), what to do with the response (show summary and consent line), and the conditional second call (Step 2 only if the person agrees, with the confirmation token). It also describes the post-submission flow (email link required before providers see it), which is essential for correct invocation and user handling.

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