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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses that this is a two-step validation-then-submit process, that step 1 returns a summary and confirmation token, that step 2 triggers an email with a click link before providers see anything, and the exact consent wording. This is far beyond basic mutation disclosure.

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 longer than average, but the length is justified by the two-step workflow and important non-purchase caveats. It is front-loaded with the key distinction ('NOT a purchase') and then clearly sequences the steps. A little redundancy exists because the consent line appears in both the description and schema, but it is not wasteful overall.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains return values from step 1, the confirmation token handshake, the email-link requirement, the meaning of consent, and what must be shown to the person. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly across both steps.

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?

The input schema already covers the parameters with 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful procedural context: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after the person agrees to the quoted line, and confirmation is the token returned in step 1. This enriches the schema, though it partly restates what the schema already documents.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Hydraulic Repair Quotes' and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This distinguishes it from enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which are about describing and listing fields, not submitting.

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 usage flow is explicit: call first with answers and consent for validation, then call again with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It references enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, giving useful context. It does not explicitly state when to use enquiry_describe or when not to use the tool, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

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