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 it delivers: it discloses the two-call validation flow, the email side effect with the mandatory link click before any provider sees the enquiry, the non-guarantee of a quote, and the exact consent semantics. This is exceptionally rich disclosure of 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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and exclusions, with the two-step flow clearly labeled ('Step 1:', 'Step 2:'). It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and no sentence is wasted, though the repeated consent quote makes it slightly longer than necessary and a more scannable layout would help.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the step-1 return shape (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the post-submission side effect (email with clickable link), the prerequisite (answers keyed from enquiry_fields), and the consent gate. The only omission is failure-mode handling, which is minor against this level of completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds temporal meaning the flat schema cannot express: the confirmation token only exists after step 1, the same answers must be reused, and consent=true is required in both calls. That flow-level context genuinely supplements the per-parameter schema descriptions.

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 Glazier Prices' — and immediately constrains scope with negations ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The title ('Submit an ENQUIRY to human providers (two steps; not a purchase)') plus the reference to enquiry_fields for answer keys clearly separates it from its siblings, which are about describing enquiries and listing 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 invocation protocol: Step 1 with answers and consent=true to get a summary/token, and Step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. It states a when-not boundary ('NOT a purchase') and directs the agent to enquiry_fields for valid answer keys, leaving no ambiguity about how or when to call.

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