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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses the validation return (summary, consent line, confirmation token), that the token is mandatory for actual submission, that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact meaning of consent. These are behavioral facts an agent cannot derive from the schema.

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 step-structured, with the disclaimers and the two calls ordered clearly. It loses a point for quoting the full consent statement verbatim, which duplicates the consent field description in the schema, though the agent arguably needs the exact text to display.

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 multi-step, nested-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the complete lifecycle: inputs, validation response contents, token round-trip, consent semantics, and downstream email verification. An agent has everything needed to drive both calls correctly.

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: it explains that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that consent must be true at both steps, and that confirmation is the token returned by step 1 and required only on the second call. That is more than the schema conveys about how the parameters are used together.

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 to Hydraulic Repair Quotes") and immediately bounds the scope by disclaiming what it is not ("NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote"). It also ties itself to the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, so an agent can place it in the flow without opening another schema.

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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: Step 1 call with answers + consent, Step 2 only if the person agrees and only with the confirmation token. Each call's precondition is stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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