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 so: it discloses the two-stage token handshake, that validation happens in step 1, that submission triggers an email the person must click before any provider sees the data, and that up to three providers may receive the details. It also spells out exactly what consent authorises, which is the key side effect an agent must not misrepresent.

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 critical constraint ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') is front-loaded and the step 1/step 2 structure is easy to follow. The one blemish is that the full consent sentence is quoted verbatim, duplicating the identical text already in the schema's consent description – defensible for emphasis but it lengthens an already dense block.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: the two-step protocol, the intermediate return values (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the final outcome (email with a click-through link), and the consent semantics. Nothing about correct invocation is left unstated.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond it: it explains that 'answers' is keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that 'consent' must be true to proceed, and that 'confirmation' is the token returned by step 1 and only supplied after the person approves the summary. That origin-and-timing detail is not in the schema.

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 an enquiry') plus the recipient ('to LEV Testing Cost') and immediately disambiguates the nature of the action ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also references the sibling tool enquiry_fields as the source of the answer keys, so an agent can place it relative to its siblings without opening a 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 explicit, sequenced when-to-use instructions: Step 1 call with answers + consent, show the summary and consent line; Step 2 call again only if the person agrees, adding the confirmation token. The conditional gate ('only if the person agrees') removes any ambiguity about when the second call is permitted.

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