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 richly: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 actually submits and triggers an email, and that a clicked email link is required before any provider sees the data. It also spells out the exact consent scope (up to three brokers).

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 critical 'not a purchase' caveat and organized as a clean Step 1 / Step 2 narrative. It is dense and the full consent sentence is repeated verbatim from the schema, which is mildly redundant, but the length is justified by the two-step flow's complexity.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns, and it does (summary, consent line, confirmation token). For a no-annotation mutation tool with a confirmation gate, side effects and prerequisites are fully covered; nothing an agent needs to call it 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value by tying 'answers' to the field keys returned by the sibling enquiry_fields and by explaining that the confirmation token originates from step 1's return. It doesn't add per-parameter types or constraints beyond what the schema already documents.

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') and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' An agent can distinguish it from the sibling enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields tools without opening any schema.

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: call step 1 with answers+consent to validate, then call step 2 only if the person agrees, passing the token. The condition selecting each call is stated, and it names the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of field keys.

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