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 well: it discloses the validate-and-return behavior, the confirmation token mechanism, that submission triggers an email with a required click-through before providers see anything, and the exact consent semantics. These are meaningful behavioral facts an agent cannot get from the schema alone.

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 core purpose and the not-a-purchase disclaimer, then walks the two steps in order. It is long, but the length is driven by necessary behavioral detail and the verbatim consent text; almost every clause earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and a nested answers object, the description is complete: it explains what step 1 returns, what step 2 does, the email confirmation gate, and the consent meaning. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 workflow meaning by explaining that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and by mapping each parameter to its step (consent=true both times, confirmation only in step 2). That is genuine added value beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 Find A Co-Packer') and immediately disambiguates from adjacent concepts by ruling out 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields tools without opening 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: step 1 with answers and consent=true, then step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The precondition for the second call is stated unambiguously, leaving nothing to inference.

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