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 does so: it discloses that the call is a mutation (submission), that it is two-phase with a validation pass before commitment, that a confirmation token gates the second call, that consent has a specific legal meaning, and that an email link must be clicked before providers see anything. These are exactly the side-effect and authorization facts 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?

Purpose and the not-a-purchase caveat are front-loaded, then the two steps follow in execution order, which matches how an agent must call it. It is long and somewhat run-on, but nearly every clause carries operational information; only the final restatement of the consent text duplicates the schema wording.

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 three-parameter mutating tool with a nested answers object and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value expectations (summary, consent line, confirmation token) plus the consent semantics and post-submission email flow. An agent has everything needed to execute both steps correctly without guessing.

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: it explains that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that consent corresponds to a quoted consent sentence, and that confirmation is the token returned in step 1 and used only after approval. The one gap is the accepted value types for answers, which the schema already covers.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Submits an enquiry to Google reviews calculator") and immediately negates two common misreadings ("NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote"). An agent can distinguish this from the read-only helper siblings enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit, ordered conditions for each call: step 1 with answers + consent=true, and step 2 only "if the person agrees" with the returned token. It also states the precondition that no provider sees the enquiry until the person clicks the emailed link, so the agent knows not to treat step 2 as the final human-visible action.

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