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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses validation, the summary/consent/token return from Step 1, the two-step confirmation requirement, the email with a required click, and the exact consent wording. This is far beyond what the schema reveals.

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 structured around clear Step 1 and Step 2 instructions, with the critical 'not a purchase / not a quote' warning front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: each detail about consent, tokens, and the email link is necessary context for the two-step flow.

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, consent-gated, two-step submission with no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete. It specifies both calls, the required parameters at each step, what happens after submission, and the exact behavior the consent flag represents. An agent has enough information to execute the tool correctly without external clarification.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent=true only means the person agreed to the quoted consent line, and confirmation is the token returned by Step 1. These details are not inferable from the schema alone and are essential for correct invocation.

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?

The description opens with a specific action and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Lease Extension Quotes' and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' The two-step structure clarifies exactly what the tool does, and the submission action clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use instructions: call Step 1 with answers and consent=true, then call Step 2 only if the person agrees and with the confirmation token. It also warns against misuse by stating it is not a purchase or guaranteed quote. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to its siblings, only referencing enquiry_fields for keys, so it stops short of a full alternative-routing explanation.

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