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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that submission is two-step, that providers see nothing until the person clicks the emailed link, and that consent requires reading a specific privacy statement. It also states what step 1 returns and what must be shown to the person.

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 dense but every sentence is load-bearing: the two-step protocol, the consent text, and the email-link condition are all necessary for correct invocation. It front-loads the most important caveat (not a purchase/quote) and keeps a logical order.

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-step tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is complete: it explains the flow, the user-interaction requirement (show summary, get agreement), the confirmation token, and the post-submission email-link gate. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is left unexplained. The only minor wrinkle is that confirmation is not marked required in the schema even though step 2 requires it, but the description resolves this.

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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3; the description adds conditional semantics — the confirmation token is only used in step 2, and answers must be keyed by enquiry_fields keys — which goes beyond the schema. It earns a 4.

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 Duct Cleaning Quotes') and explicitly disambiguates the action: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It does not rely on the tool name and is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields.

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?

Provides explicit step-by-step conditions: call with answers and consent=true, then call again with confirmation token only if the person agrees. It also names enquiry_fields as the source of field keys and clarifies what the service is not (a purchase/quote). This is unusually actionable.

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