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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it is transparent about side effects and sequencing: this is not a purchase, a second call is required, and the person receives an email with a link they must click before any provider sees the enquiry. It also states exactly what consent means and what step 1 returns.

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 long only because the tool genuinely requires a two-step flow. Each sentence earns its place, the core purpose is front-loaded, and the step-by-step structure makes the required call sequence easy to follow.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by describing step 1's return values (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the precondition for step 2, and the final outcome. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, and it points to enquiry_fields for the answer keys.

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 schema already defines answers, consent, and confirmation. The description reinforces these meanings and ties them to the two steps, but it adds little property-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 Grease Trap Cleaning Cost') and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This makes both the operation and its boundary unmistakable, and the references to enquiry_fields and the two-step distinction separate it from the sibling tools.

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 step-by-step protocol: call once with answers and consent=true, show the returned summary/consent line, and only call again if the person agrees with the same answers and the confirmation token. It does not explicitly compare against enquiry_describe or enquiry_fields as alternatives, though it does point to enquiry_fields for answer keys.

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