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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary plus a confirmation token, that step 2 actually submits, that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the data, and the exact scope of data sharing (up to three companies). This is unusually rich disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 non-purchase caveat, then walks the two steps in order. Slightly long because the full consent text is reproduced even though the schema already carries it verbatim for the consent parameter, which is redundant but not harmful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns - and it does, naming the summary, the consent line, and the confirmation token from step 1. For a two-step, consent-gated submission tool with a nested answers object, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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: it explains that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that consent=true is a precondition, and critically that the confirmation token comes from step 1 and is only supplied once the person has approved the summary.

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 (submit) and resource (enquiry) and immediately clarifies what it is NOT ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This distinguishes it from siblings enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which respectively describe and enumerate fields, rather than submit data.

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 explicit when-to-use sequencing: Step 1 call with answers + consent=true, Step 2 only if the person agrees after seeing the summary, call again with the confirmation token. It also names the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of the field keys, so the agent knows how to obtain valid input.

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