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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses the two-phase submit/confirm design, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token), that the enquiry is not visible to providers until an emailed link is clicked, and the exact downstream scope (up to three contractors, name disclosed as details are shared, opt-out possible). This is precisely the context annotations could never encode.

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 key distinction ('NOT a purchase'), then structured as Step 1 / Step 2. The embedded consent quotation is long and repeats the schema's consent description, but it is legally load-bearing text that the agent must surface verbatim, so it earns its place.

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 nested-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything needed: the two-call flow, the token round-trip, the meaning of consent, the return contents of step 1, and the post-submission verification gate. It also routes the agent to enquiry_fields for the answer keys, so no prerequisite 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: the answers object is keyed by the field key drawn from enquiry_fields, consent must be true, and the confirmation token is the step-1 token used only after the person approves the summary. That clarifies parameter provenance and sequencing beyond the schema 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?

States a specific verb ('submits an enquiry') and resource, and immediately scopes it with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote' — a distinction that matters for an agent deciding whether to invoke. It also references the sibling tool enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, so the tool is distinguishable from its siblings 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers+consent to get a token and show the summary, step 2 only if the person agrees, with the token added. It states the precondition for step 2 ('only if the person agrees') and what must be shown to the person, leaving no inference about ordering or gating.

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