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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: it reveals the two-step validation/submission flow, the consent requirement, the email link that must be clicked before providers see the enquiry, and the non-purchase/non-quote nature of the action. This is unusually transparent for a tool with no annotations.

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 dense but well organized with explicit 'Step 1' and 'Step 2' markers, and the key caveats are front-loaded ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It repeats the consent text verbatim even though the schema already includes it, which adds slight redundancy, but every sentence still earns its place given the workflow complexity.

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 complex two-step tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to call, what to send, what to show the person, when to call again, what the second call does, and the email-link requirement. No critical operational detail 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?

Although the schema already describes all three parameters, the description adds workflow-level meaning: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent=true reflects explicit agreement to the quoted consent line, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1. This connects each parameter to its role in the two-step process, going well 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Heat Network Check') and immediately distinguishes itself from a purchase or a guaranteed quote. It also clearly separates this tool from its siblings by framing the two-step submission workflow, so an agent can tell it apart from enquiry_fields and the checker 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 explicit step-by-step instructions: call first with answers and consent=true, show the summary and consent line, then call again only if the person agrees, passing the confirmation token. It also cross-references enquiry_fields for the answer keys and states what the tool is not for, making the when-to-use guidance unambiguous.

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