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 well: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, the double opt-in email step before providers see the enquiry, and the exact consent text. This is far beyond what the schema conveys.

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 purpose and the not-a-purchase caveat are front-loaded, and the step ordering is clear. It is somewhat long and repeats the consent wording already present in the schema, but every sentence contributes procedural information.

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 must explain returns, and it does: step 1 returns a summary, consent line and confirmation token; step 2 triggers a confirmation email. For a nested-object, two-step tool this is complete enough 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 real meaning: 'answers' is keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, and 'confirmation' is the token returned from step 1 after human approval. It clarifies the token's provenance and lifecycle beyond the schema's terse wording.

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) and resource (an enquiry to the Link building SEO service) and immediately disambiguates from a purchase or guaranteed quote. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields tools 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?

Explicitly prescribes the two-step sequence: step 1 with answers + consent=true to obtain a summary and token, step 2 only after the person agrees, re-sending answers plus the token. It states the gating condition ('only if the person agrees') and the required human confirmation, leaving no ambiguity about when to call each step.

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