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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that the tool is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that nothing reaches providers until the person clicks an email link, and exactly what consent authorizes (details to up to three named surveyors, with the ability to stop).

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-loads the key distinction (not a purchase) and then walks the two steps in order. It is long, largely because it inlines the verbatim consent text, but that text is operationally load-bearing rather than filler.

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 two-phase tool with a nested answers object and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the return values of step 1, the token round-trip, and the post-submission email-verification gate. Nothing material 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 sequencing semantics the schema cannot: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true, and confirmation is the step-1 token only after the summary is approved. That explains the relationship between the three parameters rather than restating them.

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 (submits) and resource (an enquiry to Dilapidations Quotes) and immediately scopes it with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also ties itself to the sibling enquiry_fields by naming it as the source of field keys, so the agent can place it in the flow.

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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers + consent=true, then step 2 only after the person agrees, adding the confirmation token. When-to-call and the gating condition are spelled out rather than inferred.

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