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

With no annotations to lean on, the description fully discloses behavior: two-step validation, confirmation token, email sent only after second call, and the requirement that the person click a link before any provider sees it. It also spells out the exact consent wording, leaving no ambiguity about side effects or preconditions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and exclusions, followed by tightly organized step-by-step instructions and the consent line. Every sentence earns its place; the repetition of 'NOT a purchase' reinforces a key distinction without becoming bloated.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what each step does, what the first step returns, what to show the user, what to do on the second call, and the subsequent email/link flow. Nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool 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, and the description adds valuable context beyond the schema: it explains that 'answers' are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, that consent must be true, and that 'confirmation' is required on the second call. This extra usage detail meaningfully augments the parameter docs.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Exhibition Stand Cost') and immediately disambiguates what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It clearly defines the two-step submission process, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that describe or list 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?

The description gives explicit step-by-step instructions for when to call the tool (step 1 for validation, step 2 for actual submission once the person agrees). It implicitly references enquiry_fields by instructing answers to be keyed by field keys, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings or state when not to use it.

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