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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the two-step behavior: step 1 validates and returns a summary/token, step 2 actually submits and sends an email with a required link. It also explicitly states this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, and defines consent precisely. This covers the main behavioral traits an agent needs.

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 well-structured with clear step markers, front-loads the key caveat (not a purchase), and every sentence contributes to understanding the process. It is detailed but not bloated, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two-step flow, consent, email link) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the full lifecycle from initial call to final submission, including the user-facing consent line and the email-click requirement. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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. The description adds value by explaining how the confirmation token from step 1 is used in step 2, and reinforces that consent must be true only when the person agrees. However, the schema already contains these details, so the incremental meaning is moderate.

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 action (submits an enquiry) with a clear resource (Generator Servicing Cost) and explicitly differentiates it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by implying that enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are for gathering information, while this tool performs the actual submission.

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 provides explicit step-by-step usage: step 1 with answers and consent, then step 2 with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It also clarifies the consent requirement and the email-link step, leaving no ambiguity about when and how to call the tool. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the process itself is a clear usage guide.

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