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 validates and returns a summary, consent line and token; that step 2 triggers an email with a click-through link before any provider sees the data; and that up to three providers will receive contact details. It also spells out the exact consent scope, which is the key side-effect of the write.

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 critical negative framing ('NOT a purchase') is front-loaded, and the step structure is easy to scan. However, the full consent sentence is quoted verbatim again after the schema already contains it, which is wasted length in an otherwise dense passage.

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 nested-object write tool with no output schema, the description explains both the input convention (answers keyed by field key from the sibling tool) and what each call returns (summary, consent line, token; then a verification email). Nothing an agent needs to complete the two-step flow 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 genuine sequencing semantics the schema cannot express: answers are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must be true in both calls, and confirmation is only supplied in step 2 after approval. The consent text is repeated verbatim from the schema, which is redundant rather than additive.

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') plus the target ('to Fire Alarm Servicing Cost'), and immediately bounds it with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' The sibling tools enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are implicitly distinguished by the fact that this one submits while they supply descriptions/field keys.

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 to validate and obtain a token, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the token. It also names the preconditions for each call, so the agent knows exactly when to invoke which variant.

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