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. It discloses that step 1 is non-final and only validates, that step 2 actually submits, that the person receives an email link they must click before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact meaning of consent. This gives an agent an accurate model of the tool's side effects and sequencing.

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 long but every part earns its place given the two-step workflow and safety-critical consent requirement. It is front-loaded with the key caveat ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and uses clear step labels. The consent quote is somewhat redundant with the schema, but repeating it is justified for a consent-dependent action.

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 submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete. It explains what step 1 returns, what step 2 does, the email-link prerequisite, and where answer keys come from. An agent has enough context to invoke both steps correctly without consulting additional tool definitions.

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?

The schema already covers all three parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful sequencing context: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, the confirmation token must come from step 1, and the same answers plus consent=true are reused in step 2. This slightly exceeds what the schema alone states, justifying a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to FORS Accreditation Cost'. It also explicitly excludes what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which distinguishes it clearly from any purchase-like action and from the sibling tools enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields.

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: step 1 validates and returns a summary, consent line, and confirmation token; step 2 is only to be called after the person agrees, using the same answers and token. This is direct, actionable guidance on when and how to invoke the tool versus waiting for user confirmation.

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