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 does so thoroughly. It discloses that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, that consent has a specific agreed meaning, that the first call only validates, that the second call actually submits, and that the person must click an emailed link before providers see the enquiry.

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 structured and front-loaded with the critical 'not a purchase' caveat, then lays out Step 1 and Step 2 in a logical sequence. It is fairly long but every sentence carries necessary workflow information; minor redundancy with the title and the consent line repeated from the schema keeps it from a perfect score.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is unusually complete. It explains the two-call protocol, what Step 1 returns, when Step 2 is appropriate, the exact consent wording, and the email-link requirement. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly without further clarification.

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 documents all parameters, the description adds crucial operational meaning: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent=true is the required state, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1 after approval. This goes well beyond the raw schema 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 verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Heritage Statement Cost' and immediately clarifies what it is NOT ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling tools enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which are clearly informational rather than submission-oriented.

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 provides an explicit two-step protocol: Step 1 validates and returns a summary and confirmation token; Step 2 must only be called after the person agrees, using the token. It also tells the agent to use answers keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, giving concrete routing guidance and prerequisites.

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