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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool validates, returns a summary and confirmation token, requires a second confirmation call, and sends an email with a link the person must click before providers see the enquiry. It also defines exactly what consent means, quoting the consent line verbatim.

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 description is front-loaded with the most important caveat ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and then lays out the two-step flow in a dense but organized way. Every sentence adds operational value, and the consent requirement is repeated only where it directly affects behavior.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the return artifacts of step 1 (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the required condition for step 2 (person agrees), and the post-submission behavior (email link click before provider visibility). Nothing an agent needs to execute the flow 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: answers are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after the person has read the quoted consent line, and the confirmation parameter comes from step 1 after the person approves the summary. This gives the agent practical context for all three parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Forklift Servicing Cost') and immediately clarifies what it is not: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' This distinguishes the tool from other actions and from potentially related purchase/quote flows.

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?

The description gives an explicit two-step protocol: first call with answers and consent=true, show the person the summary and consent line, then call again only if the person agrees, adding the confirmation token. It also conveys when-not to use the tool with the 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' caveat. The reference to 'field key from enquiry_fields' implicitly routes the agent to the sibling tool for valid answer keys.

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