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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the first call is non-committing and returns a summary plus token, that submission triggers an email with a click-through link required before any provider sees the data, and that details go to up to three builders. It does not cover error/validation failure behavior or rate limits, so not a 5.

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 critical distinction and the step sequence are front-loaded, and the quoted consent text is verbatim language the agent must show, so it earns its length. The single dense paragraph is harder to scan than a short numbered layout would be, which keeps it from a 5.

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 stateful, consent-sensitive submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything needed: the two-step flow, what step 1 returns, the pre-provider email confirmation gate, and the exact consent language. An agent can execute both calls correctly from this text alone.

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 real meaning: 'answers' must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, 'consent' has a defined interpretive meaning, and 'confirmation' is specifically the token returned from step 1 after summary approval — context the schema alone does not tie together.

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 Engine Rebuild Cost') and immediately bounds scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also cross-references the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening the schema.

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 validates with answers + consent=true, step 2 is called 'only if the person agrees' with the confirmation token added. It states both the when (after approval) and the when-not (do not call step 2 without agreement), which is exactly the guidance needed for a multi-turn tool.

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