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 validation behavior, the exact step-1 return payload (summary, consent line, token), the required human interaction (show the summary and consent line), and the post-submit gate (email link must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry). It also spells out the consent semantics and the disclosure to up to three firms.

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 purpose and the not-a-purchase caveat, then the two steps in order. It is long, but most length is load-bearing workflow detail; the one inefficiency is the consent sentence reproduced verbatim from the schema's consent description.

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, nested-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything needed: step sequencing, return contents, the human-approval requirement, and the downstream email-confirmation gate. 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 schema alone sets a baseline of 3. The description adds real value beyond it by tying each parameter to a workflow stage — answers keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent=true, and confirmation used only in step 2 — which the flat schema cannot express.

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 Fire Alarm Servicing Cost') and immediately bounds it with explicit negatives ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also references the sibling tool enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, so an agent can distinguish it from the two helper siblings.

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 to validate, step 2 only after the person agrees, with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The condition that selects step 2 ('only if the person agrees') and the exclusion ('NOT a purchase') leave nothing to inference.

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