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 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that nothing is submitted until step 2, that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact scope of consent (up to three specialists, notified as details are shared, revocable). This is far beyond a simple 'submit' claim.

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 framing ('NOT a purchase') is front-loaded and the two steps are clearly ordered. It is long, and the consent text is quoted verbatim in both the description and the consent schema field, which is mild redundancy, but every clause otherwise earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains what each call returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after submission (email with a click-through link). For a nested-object, multi-step write tool with no annotations, nothing an agent needs 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 real meaning the schema does not: it explains that 'answers' must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and that 'confirmation' comes from step 1 and is required only on the second call. The parameter roles in the two-step flow are clarified beyond the flat field list.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Gearbox Repair Quotes') and immediately carves out scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling tools enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe.

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 spells out an explicit two-call protocol: step 1 with answers and consent=true, then step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the confirmation token added. The dependency on field keys from enquiry_fields is stated, so the agent knows the sequencing and prerequisites rather than inferring them.

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