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 exact step-1 return values (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the mandatory re-call pattern, the post-submit email-link gating before any provider sees data, and the full text of what consent means. This covers safety, state machine and side effects in one place.

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 scope statement and then ordered by step, so it reads well. The one inefficiency is reproducing the entire consent sentence verbatim, which already exists in the consent parameter's schema description — duplication that lengthens the block without adding information.

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: step 1 returns a summary, the consent line and a token; step 2 triggers submission and an email link. For a two-step, nested-object, consent-sensitive tool, nothing an agent needs 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: 'answers' is keyed by field key originating from enquiry_fields, 'consent' must be true only after agreement, and 'confirmation' is the token returned by step 1 and is used only in the second call. That last point is procedural context present nowhere in the schema.

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 Dilapidations Cost') and immediately scopes it with two negations ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which removes the most likely misreading for a sibling tool set involving describe/fields steps. An agent can distinguish this from enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe 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 description gives an unusually explicit when-to-call sequence: step 1 with answers+consent, step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the token, and it references enquiry_fields as the source of the field keys. It stops short of naming the sibling tools directly (e.g. what enquiry_describe is for vs this), which is the only gap.

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