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 validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, the side effect of submission, and the downstream consequence that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry. It even documents the exact consent scope and that details go to up to three contractors who can be stopped.

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 key disclaimers and structured as Step 1 / Step 2, which reads well. It loses a point for repeating the full consent sentence verbatim, which already appears in the schema's consent description, and for the overall length.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns — and it does (summary, consent line, confirmation token, plus the email/link follow-up). For a mutation tool with no annotations and a nested answers object, nothing an agent needs to call 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 baseline is 3; the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and that the confirmation token comes specifically from step 1 after the person approves the summary, and that step 2 reuses the same answers.

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 Demolition Quotes') and immediately scopes it with what it is NOT ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also points at the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of the field keys, so an agent can tell this apart from enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields 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?

The two-step protocol is spelled out with an explicit gate: step 1 to validate and get a token, step 2 only if the person agrees. 'Not a purchase' implicitly excludes transactional use, but no alternative tool is named for the purchase case, so the when-not side is slightly thinner than the when side.

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