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 thoroughly: it explains that step 1 is validation-only, that step 2 triggers a submission and a downstream email with a verification link, and that consent has a defined legal/operational meaning. It also discloses the post-submission flow (providers only see details after the link is clicked), which is critical for an agent to set user expectations correctly.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and not-a-purchase caveat, then cleanly delineated into Step 1 and Step 2. The full consent text is quoted verbatim, which is somewhat verbose but arguably necessary for legal fidelity; it slightly dilutes conciseness.

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?

Despite the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: the two-step call sequence, required parameters at each stage, the consent semantic, the post-submission email gate, and the downstream sharing behavior. The complexity of a nested, stateful, consent-driven tool is adequately addressed.

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%, but the description goes further by explaining parameter roles within the workflow: 'answers keyed by field key from enquiry_fields', consent must be true, and the confirmation token only comes from step 1 after approval. This workflow-embedded semantics exceeds what the schema alone 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Heat Network Check') and immediately disambiguates the intent with negations ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which separates it from any sibling that might imply transactional behavior. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 lays out an explicit two-step protocol: when to call with which parameters, and the condition ('only if the person agrees') that unlocks step 2. It tells the agent precisely when to invoke the tool at each stage and what prerequisite (token from step 1) must be met, leaving no inference required.

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