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: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that nothing reaches providers until the person clicks an emailed link, that up to three engineers will receive the details, and the exact consent semantics. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before mutating state.

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 two-step flow is front-loaded and every clause is functional, but the consent wording is quoted verbatim in the description despite already appearing twice in the schema, which is mild redundancy. Otherwise it is dense and well-ordered rather than padded.

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 what each call returns (validated summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what the end user receives (an email with a click-through link). Nothing needed to invoke this tool 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 value the schema cannot: it maps parameters to steps (answers + consent in step 1, the same plus confirmation in step 2) and clarifies that confirmation is a token returned by the earlier call. It does not document value formats inside the nested answers object, which the schema also leaves open.

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 Industrial Fridge Service') and immediately delimits what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). Combined with the sibling names enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, an agent can identify this as the submission step without opening any 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 validate, step 2 only after the person approves the summary, adding the confirmation token. It also flags where the field keys come from (enquiry_fields), so when-to-use and sequencing are unambiguous.

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