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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 actually submits, and that the person receives an email with a link they must click before any provider sees the enquiry. It also spells out the exact consent semantics the agent must present.

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 step ordering is front-loaded and every sentence is functional, but the full consent sentence is quoted verbatim here and again in the consent parameter's schema description, which is redundant bulk.

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, stateful two-step tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the full interaction: step 1 return values, the human-approval gate, and the post-submission email-verification requirement. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 flow meaning: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true, and confirmation is the token returned by step 1 and used only in step 2. That maps each parameter to its role in the two-step sequence beyond the schema's own text.

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 Industrial Cleaning Quotes') and immediately bounds scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' An agent can distinguish it from enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe without opening a 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?

It lays out an explicit two-step protocol with the condition that selects each step: step 1 with answers+consent, step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. Nothing about when to call is left to inference.

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