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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the first call does not submit, that a confirmation token is required for the second call, that an email link must be clicked before providers see the enquiry, and the exact consent wording. This is unusually transparent about 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?

The description is longer than average, but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the critical 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote' caveat, then organized into clear numbered steps, with the consent quote included verbatim to avoid ambiguity. No extraneous 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 tool with no output schema, the description explains exactly what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after step 2 (email with a clickable link). It also references enquiry_fields for valid answer keys, giving the agent everything needed to call the tool correctly in both steps.

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 meaningful process context beyond the schema: answers are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must match the exact quoted text, and confirmation is only needed for the second call. This elevates the semantics beyond simple parameter definitions.

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 to Grain Storage Costs' — and immediately clarifies what it is not: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' This distinguishes it from the sibling tools (enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields), which handle description and field enumeration, not 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 two-step workflow is explicitly defined: step 1 validates and returns a summary and confirmation token; step 2 submits only if the person agrees. It also gives clear exclusions ('not a purchase') and directs the agent to use field keys from enquiry_fields, making the appropriate usage unmistakable.

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