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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the validation-only first call, the returned summary/consent line/token, the double-submission guard via the token, the post-submit email link that must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact consent scope (contact details to up to three contractors, with opt-out). These are real side effects an agent must know before invoking.

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 disambiguation, then cleanly segmented into Step 1 / Step 2. The full consent sentence is reproduced verbatim from the schema's consent description, which is some duplication, but it is arguably needed at the point of decision.

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?

Despite having no output schema and a nested object parameter, the description explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), what step 2 causes (submission plus a verification email), and the consent semantics — enough for an agent to drive the whole flow correctly.

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 meaning the schema cannot: 'answers' must be keyed by field key sourced from enquiry_fields, and 'confirmation' is only populated on the second call after human approval of the summary. That clarifies sequencing and provenance beyond the field-level descriptions.

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+resource ('submits an enquiry') and immediately disambiguates it from what an agent might assume: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also points at the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of answer keys, so the tool is separable from its siblings.

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=true to validate and obtain a token, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The gating condition for each call is stated, not implied.

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