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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: a stateful two-step contract (first call validates, second call submits), what Step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the email-with-link requirement before providers see the enquiry, and the exact legal consent text. The 'NOT a guaranteed quote' caveat further manages expectations about outcomes.

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 long, but every element earns its place: the front-loaded negation, the Step 1/Step 2 structure, the consent quote, and the email-link requirement are all load-bearing for a stateful, consent-gated tool. The step markers make the sequential protocol easy to parse in order.

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?

Even without annotations or an output schema, the description is near-complete: it covers the full call sequence, return artifacts of Step 1, the consent meaning, and the post-submission email flow. The only notable gap is what happens when Step 1 validation fails — no error/retry behavior is described.

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 real operational meaning: it ties 'answers' to the enquiry_fields keys, clarifies that consent=true is required in both steps, and explains that the confirmation token is the stateful handoff between the two calls — context the schema alone does not convey.

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 ('Submits') and resource ('an enquiry to Land Drainage Contractors'), and immediately distinguishes itself from what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The two-step handshake described in the title is fully honored in the body, and referencing 'field key from enquiry_fields' routes the agent to the correct sibling for key lookups.

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?

Provides an explicit step-by-step protocol: Step 1 call with answers and consent=true, surface the summary and consent line to the person, then Step 2 call again only if the person agrees, reusing the same answers, consent=true, and the confirmation token. The conditional ('only if the person agrees') and the email-link prerequisite ('before any provider sees it') leave nothing to inference.

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