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 so richly: it is not a purchase or a guaranteed quote, step 1 only validates, an email verification link must be clicked before any provider sees the data, up to three assessors may be contacted, and consent can be withdrawn for future firms. The verbatim consent scope and its consequences are disclosed in detail.

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?

Purpose and the two-step flow are front-loaded, and the length is largely driven by the mandated verbatim consent wording that must be reproduced for legal accuracy. There is minor redundancy between the title and the opening ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), but overall each element earns its place.

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 nested-object, two-phase submission tool with no output schema, the description covers validation behavior, what step 1 returns, what triggers step 2, the email-confirmation gate, and the exact consent scope. Nothing an agent needs to invoke either step 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that consent must be true at both steps, and that the confirmation token is the one returned by step 1 after the person approves the summary. That sequencing context is not present in the schema text.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to DSEAR Assessment Cost') and immediately disambiguates the intent from a purchase or a guaranteed quote. It is clearly distinct from the read-only siblings enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which supply schema/field metadata rather than submitting anything.

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?

It gives an explicit two-step procedure: step 1 with answers and consent=true returns a summary/consent line/token, and step 2 should only be called 'if the person agrees' with the token. The gating condition and sequencing are fully spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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