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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses validation, the returned summary/consent line/confirmation token, the email-link gating before providers see the enquiry, and the exact consent meaning. It omits error handling, idempotency, and any auth requirements.

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 core purpose and exclusions are front-loaded, then the two steps are clearly labeled. It is dense but justified for a two-step workflow; the consent quote is somewhat repetitive with the schema but supports the instruction to show the consent line.

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 complex two-step, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description covers the full flow and even explains returned values from Step 1. It does not mention the enquiry_describe sibling or what happens if validation fails, but is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 useful semantics: answers are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, and the confirmation token is tied to the approved Step 1 summary. It also clarifies that consent=true must reflect the person's agreement, which goes slightly beyond the schema description.

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 Lead generation for roofing') and immediately distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also references the sibling enquiry_fields as the source for field keys, helping an agent tell it apart from related 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 Step 1 and Step 2 instructions, including the condition that Step 2 happens only if the person agrees. It does not name sibling alternatives such as enquiry_describe or explain when not to use this tool beyond the purchase/quote exclusion.

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