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 validation behavior on step 1, the returned summary/consent line/confirmation token, that the enquiry is only submitted on step 2, and that the person must click an email link before any provider sees the details. It also spells out exactly what consent means. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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 two-step flow and the non-purchase disclaimer; every sentence carries operational meaning. Slightly penalized for re-quoting the full consent sentence already present in the schema's consent description, which is duplicated content rather than new information.

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 stateful two-call tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything: the preconditions, the intermediate artifact (confirmation token and summary), the second-call requirement, and the post-submission email-verification step. An agent can execute correctly without any further reference.

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; the description goes further by explaining the sequencing of the three parameters (answers plus consent in step 1, then the same answers, consent, and the confirmation token in step 2). It clarifies how the confirmation token is obtained and when to supply it, which the schema alone only hints at.

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 IT Support Cost Calculator") and immediately scopes it against expectations ("NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote"), which is exactly the boundary an agent needs. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like calculate, enquiry_fields, or enquiry_describe.

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 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token; Step 2 is invoked "only if the person agrees" with the token. The precondition for each call and the human-approval gate between them are stated directly, leaving nothing to inference.

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