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 richly: validation behavior, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry, and the full consent semantics including up to three contractors and the opt-out right.

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?

Dense and somewhat long, but the length is justified by a genuinely two-phase, high-stakes flow. The non-purchase caveat is front-loaded and each sentence carries operative instruction rather than filler.

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 no output schema, the description explains what each call returns and the downstream email-confirmation consequence, and it fully covers consent intent. Nothing an agent needs to invoke either step 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 sequencing semantics the schema cannot: answers come from enquiry_fields keys, consent must be true, and the confirmation token is only supplied in step 2 after approval. That materially clarifies how the parameters interact across calls.

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 intent with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. The two-step framing and reference to the enquiry_fields sibling make it identifiable against nearby 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?

Gives explicit when-to-call conditions for both steps, including the gate 'only if the person agrees' before step 2, and routes the agent to enquiry_fields for field keys. It tells the agent exactly what to show the person between calls.

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