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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does most of it: validation behaviour, what step 1 returns, the double-opt-in email link the recipient must click before any provider sees data, and the exact scope of consent (up to three contractors, direct contact, right to stop). It stops short of covering failure/retry semantics, whether step 1 is idempotent, or what happens if the token expires.

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?

Front-loaded with the negative scoping statement, then the two steps in order, which is the right structure for a procedural tool. The full consent paragraph is reproduced verbatim from the schema's consent parameter description, which is duplication that costs space without adding information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies what an agent needs: what step 1 returns, that the enquiry is not submitted until step 2, and the downstream email verification step before providers see the data. Nothing required to call this 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds operational meaning the schema cannot: 'answers' are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after the person has agreed, and 'confirmation' is the token obtained from step 1 and only passed on the second call. That sequencing is genuinely beyond the schema.

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) and immediately scopes it with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', which prevents the most likely misclassification. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling read tools enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe, which supply the inputs this tool consumes.

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 an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 call with answers + consent=true, show the person the summary and consent line; step 2 only if the person agrees, call again with the confirmation token. The gating condition (human approval) and the alternative action (do not submit) are both stated.

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