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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the two-step validation flow, the consent line, the confirmation token, the mandatory email link click before providers see the enquiry, and the exact consent meaning. This goes well beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 sized for a two-step workflow. The non-purchase warning is front-loaded, the step boundaries are clear, and the consent quote is necessary because it defines the exact consent text. No filler sentences are present.

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 lacking an output schema and annotations, the description fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly: what Step 1 returns, what Step 2 requires, what happens after submission, what consent means, and the condition under which Step 2 should be skipped. This is complete context for a multi-step tool.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning: answers are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must match the exact quoted wording, and confirmation is explicitly defined as the token from Step 1 to be reused with the same answers. This materially enriches the parameter definitions and prevents misuse of the confirmation field.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Submits an enquiry to Dilapidations Quotes') and explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase and a guaranteed quote. However, it does not explicitly contrast the tool with the sibling tools enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, so sibling differentiation is indirect.

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 clear step-by-step invocation guidance: Step 1 with answers and consent=true to obtain a validation summary and token, then Step 2 only after the person agrees and with the confirmation token. It also states when not to treat the action as a purchase or guarantee, but it does not address when to choose this tool over the listed siblings.

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