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 the validation behaviour of step 1, the exact return payload (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the gating email-verification step, and the downstream data-sharing consequences (contact details to up to three firms, notification per firm, opt-out). This is far more than a restatement of the name.

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 disclaimers and the two-step flow, so the agent gets the essentials immediately. It loses a point for repeating the full verbatim consent string, which already appears in the schema's consent description, making the block longer than strictly necessary.

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-phase, consent-gated, nested-object tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the full lifecycle: validation, token issuance, user confirmation, submission, and email verification. Nothing an agent needs to drive either call 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 the schema lacks: answers are keyed by field key obtained from the enquiry_fields tool, consent must be true, and confirmation is the token returned by step 1 and is required only on the second call. That sequencing is not encoded in the schema.

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 Exhibition Stand Cost') and immediately disambiguates scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also cross-references the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of the answer keys, so an agent can place this tool relative to its siblings without opening their schemas.

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 with the exact conditions: step 1 with answers + consent=true, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. It also states the pre-condition that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry, which governs what the agent should tell the user.

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