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 and token, that the enquiry is not visible until the person clicks an emailed link, and exactly what consent attests to. This is well beyond what any structured field provides.

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 constraint and two-step structure are front-loaded in the first two sentences. It is dense and the verbatim quoted consent sentence is long, but that text is functionally necessary rather than filler.

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-phase, consent-gated submission flow with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers triggering conditions, step sequencing, downstream email verification, and consent semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it ties 'answers' to field keys from enquiry_fields, explains that 'confirmation' is the token returned by step 1 after approval, and clarifies consent is a user attestation, not a technical flag.

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 Google Ads consultant') and immediately bounds the scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also names the sibling tool (enquiry_fields) that supplies the answer keys, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit branching guidance: Step 1 is called with answers and consent=true to validate, Step 2 is called 'only if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. The prerequisite for moving between steps and the required user interaction ('show the person the summary and the consent line') are all spelled out.

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