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 it does so thoroughly. It discloses side effects (email with link, provider only sees it after link click), the consent line, and the two-step confirmation flow. It also states the tool is not a purchase and not a guaranteed quote, setting expectations.

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 a single paragraph but organized by Step 1 and Step 2, with the key caveat front-loaded: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It contains no filler; each sentence contributes to the correct call sequence.

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 two-step tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains validation, summary display, consent requirement, confirmation token, email, and provider visibility. An agent can perform both steps correctly from this description alone.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful usage context: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after the person agrees to the exact text, and confirmation token comes from step 1. This makes the parameters actionable.

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 the exact verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Interceptor Cleaning Cost'. It immediately disambiguates from a purchase or quote and references the two-step nature. This differentiates it from the sibling tools enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which clearly play different roles.

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 explicitly describes when to call: Step 1 with answers and consent=true, then Step 2 only if the person agrees, passing the confirmation token. It references enquiry_fields for answer keys, and clearly states it is not a purchase, so an agent won't confuse it with a billing tool. It doesn't name alternatives explicitly, but the context is unambiguous.

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