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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: validation behavior on step 1, exactly what is returned (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the human-in-the-loop requirement to show those, and the post-submission email/link gate that prevents providers from seeing the enquiry until clicked. It also spells out the consent scope (up to three assessors, per-firm notification, 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-loaded with the critical negation before the procedural detail, and the step sequencing is easy to follow. The main inefficiency is the consent sentence quoted in full, which duplicates the consent parameter's schema description verbatim rather than pointing at it.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing both return values of step 1 and the downstream email confirmation flow. For a nested-object, two-phase tool with no annotations, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly appears to be 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. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema: 'answers' must be keyed by field key drawn from enquiry_fields, 'consent=true' is required on both calls, and 'confirmation' is the step-1 token supplied only after approval — clarifying provenance and ordering the schema does not.

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 EPC Upgrade Cost') and immediately negates the most likely misinterpretation ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe, which are clearly lookup helpers.

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, step 2 only if the person agrees, with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The condition that gates step 2 ('only if the person agrees') is stated, and the dependency on enquiry_fields for the answer keys is cross-referenced.

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