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 thoroughly. It discloses validation, the return of a summary/consent line/confirmation token, the two-call requirement, the post-submission email, and the condition that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the emailed link. This is exceptional transparency for a mutation-like action.

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 somewhat lengthy, but every sentence carries necessary operational or legal context. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and the 'NOT a purchase' clarifier, then flows logically through step 1, step 2, and the consent definition. No filler or repetition.

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, yet the description compensates by naming the returned artifacts (summary, consent line, confirmation token). It also covers the two-step lifecycle, the email link requirement, and provider visibility. For a multi-step interactive tool with nested parameters and no annotations, this description is fully adequate for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema by explaining that answers are 'keyed by field key from enquiry_fields', that confirmation is the token from step 1, and by restating the exact consent text. This meaningfully enhances the bare parameter definitions.

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 ('submits an enquiry'), a specific resource ('Industrial Fridge Service'), and clearly disambiguates from related actions: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also names the two-step nature, so an agent understands the tool's exact role even without knowing the sibling tools.

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 description gives explicit step-by-step guidance: when to call first (with answers and consent=true), what to do with the returned summary, and when to call again (only after agreement, with confirmation token). It also states the consent requirement verbatim, removing ambiguity about the condition for use.

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