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, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), that the enquiry is not visible to providers until the person clicks an emailed link, and the exact consent text. It also makes clear the tool does not create a purchase or a guaranteed quote.

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 disambiguation before the procedural detail, and every sentence carries operational weight. It is long, and the full consent paragraph is reproduced verbatim from the schema description, which is some redundancy, but the sequencing is easy to follow.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly explains what each call returns and what the agent must do with it (show the summary and consent line to the person). For a two-step, human-consent-gated submission tool, an agent has everything needed to execute both steps correctly.

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 meaning: "answers" is keyed by field key from the sibling enquiry_fields tool, and "confirmation" is the token returned by step 1 after approval. The consent explanation largely duplicates the schema's own description, which caps this at 4.

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 Lease Extension Quotes") and immediately disambiguates what it is not: "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote." An agent can distinguish this from enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields 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?

Spells out the exact two-step protocol: step 1 call with answers + consent=true, then step 2 only "if the person agrees," re-calling with the confirmation token. The gating condition and the human-in-the-loop requirement are explicit, 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.