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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the non-purchase/non-quote nature, that a token gates the real submission, that an email confirmation link must be clicked before any provider sees the data, the cap of three providers, and the opt-out right. This is exactly the context an agent needs before mutating anything on a person's behalf.

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 and logically ordered by Step 1/Step 2, but the consent paragraph is reproduced verbatim from the schema's `consent` description, which is pure duplication. The step framing earns its place; the repeated consent text does not.

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 two-phase mutation with a nested free-form object and no output schema, the description supplies both return shapes (summary, consent line, token) and the terminal outcome (email link). Nothing an agent needs to sequence the calls 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; the description goes further by explaining the workflow semantics of `confirmation` (it is the token returned by step 1, and must only be supplied after approval) and that `answers` must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields. It does not add validation rules or error behavior beyond that.

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 delimits it against common misreadings ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also implicitly separates itself from the sibling flow tools (enquiry_fields, enquiry_describe) by naming the field-key source for `answers`.

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?

Explicitly prescribes a two-call sequence: Step 1 with answers+consent, Step 2 only after the person approves, with the confirmation token. The critical gating condition ('only if the person agrees'), the human-facing display obligation, and the downstream verification step are all stated.

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