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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that step 1 is a validation pass returning a summary/consent line/token, that the enquiry only submits on step 2, that a confirmation email with a mandatory click gates provider visibility, and it spells out exactly what consent means. This is behavioral context an agent could not get from the schema.

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 most decision-relevant fact (not a purchase) and the two steps are laid out in order with no filler sentences. It runs long, and the consent wording is quoted verbatim even though the consent parameter description already carries it, which is mild redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing what each call returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and the downstream email/click step. For a two-phase, consent-gated submission tool with a nested answers object, nothing an agent needs to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: answers must be "keyed by field key from enquiry_fields" (a cross-tool contract), consent=true is only valid after the person agrees, and confirmation is a step-2-only token. Some of this duplicates the schema descriptions, which keeps it from a 5.

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 EPOS system for retail") and immediately bounds it with two scope negations: "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote." An agent can tell this is a write-like submission flow rather than a lookup, which is what the enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields siblings are.

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?

Explicitly sequences the call: Step 1 with answers + consent=true to validate and get a token, Step 2 only "if the person agrees" with the same answers plus the token. Both the when and the when-not (do not skip step 1) are stated, not inferred.

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