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 richly: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/confirmation token, the requirement of explicit consent, the email-verification gate before providers see data, and the distribution to up to three brokers. This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 with the purpose and the two-step flow before any detail; every sentence carries operational weight. The one inefficiency is the verbatim consent sentence, which duplicates the schema's consent description rather than referencing it.

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, and the description compensates by describing exactly what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 produces (submission plus a verification email). For a 3-parameter nested-object tool with a two-phase protocol, nothing an agent needs to call it 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: 'answers' is keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, 'consent' is bound to a specific verbatim agreement, and 'confirmation' is the step-1 token used only after the person approves the summary. That cross-field workflow context is not in 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?

States a specific verb+resource (submits an enquiry to human providers) and immediately scopes it with negations ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which cleanly separates it from the calculate/calculator_describe siblings. It also points at the enquiry_fields sibling as the source of the answer keys.

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 two-step protocol is spelled out with explicit gating: step 1 validates and returns a token, step 2 happens 'only if the person agrees'. It also states the exclusions (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote) and that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry.

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