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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary, consent line and token, that step 2 actually submits and triggers an email, and that the recipient must click a link before any provider sees the enquiry. It also spells out the downstream consequence (contact details go to up to three chosen engineers who contact the person directly, with the ability to stop further firms).

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 purpose and the two negations, then the two steps in order, so the critical routing information comes first. The embedded verbatim consent paragraph is long and is duplicated in the schema's consent field description, which is mild redundancy, though arguably required for legal precision.

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 covers everything an agent needs: the two-step protocol, the token handoff, what each call returns, the consent condition, and the downstream email-confirmation gate before providers see the data. 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: 'answers' is keyed by field key sourced from the sibling enquiry_fields tool, and the confirmation token is explicitly tied to step 1 and to prior human approval. It also reinforces that the same answers must be resubmitted in step 2, a sequencing constraint the schema does not express.

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 Drain Prices') and immediately delimits it from what an agent might assume ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The two-step framing distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe tools, which are clearly preparation steps.

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 conditional flow: Step 1 with answers + consent=true, show the summary and consent line, then Step 2 only if the person agrees, passing the confirmation token. It also states the pre-condition for consent (the person has read and agreed to the quoted text), so an agent knows exactly when each call is legal.

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