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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 triggers an email with a link the person must click before any provider sees their details, and that providers are human third parties who contact the person directly. Side effects (details sent to up to three assessors, contact by those firms, ability to stop) are fully surfaced.

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 two-step sequence is front-loaded and the flow is easy to follow, but the verbatim consent sentence is reproduced from the schema's consent parameter description, adding substantial length without new information. The core instructions could be tighter without losing precision.

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. For a stateful, two-phase, high-consequence submission with no annotations, it covers everything an agent needs to act 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: "answers" are keyed by field key obtained from the sibling tool enquiry_fields, and "confirmation" is the token returned by step 1 after human approval. It clarifies sequencing semantics that the schema alone implies but does not state.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Submits an enquiry to Fire Risk Quotes") and immediately disambiguates it from adjacent concepts ("NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote"). The two-step structure is stated up front, so an agent understands the tool is invoked potentially twice with different arguments.

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?

It gives explicit conditions for each call: step 1 with answers + consent=true, step 2 only if the person agrees, with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The gate ("only if the person agrees") and the required order of operations are unambiguous, 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.