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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses the two-step interaction, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), what step 2 does (submits and sends an email with a click link), and the exact consent text. It also reveals that provider visibility is gated on the person clicking the email link, which is crucial behavioral context.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the most important caveat (not a purchase, not a quote), then cleanly separates step 1 and step 2, with the consent line quoted inline. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the full workflow, input requirements, return value of step 1, the consent legal text, the post-submission email flow, and the gating condition for provider visibility. An agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly and know what to tell the user.

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. The description adds value by explaining that answers are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, that consent=true is meaningful only when the exact consent statement has been read and agreed to, and that the confirmation token originates from step 1. This goes beyond the schema's property 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Demolition Quotes.' It immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and separates it from siblings like enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which are clearly not submission tools. The two-step nature of the tool is also explicit.

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 precise when-to-use instructions: call step 1 with answers and consent=true, show the person the summary and consent line, then call step 2 only if the person agrees, including the confirmation token. It also states the exclusion condition (not a purchase/guaranteed quote) and what must happen before a provider sees the enquiry.

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