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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses validation, return of summary/consent line/token, the email link that must be clicked before providers see the enquiry, and the exact consent wording. This is rich behavioral transparency for a side-effectful submission tool.

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?

Dense but purposeful; it front-loads purpose and exclusions before stepping through the two calls. The quoted consent line is long but operationally necessary; still, the description is slightly more verbose than a minimal definition could be.

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 two-step, high-stakes submission with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, consent, validation response, token, second call, email link, and provider visibility. No essential calling information is missing.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters, but the description adds workflow semantics: answers must use field keys from enquiry_fields, the confirmation token is the step-1 artifact needed for final submission, and consent must remain true in both calls. This materially explains how the parameters interact beyond their individual schema descriptions.

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 precise action ('submits an enquiry to Livery Prices') with strong exclusions ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and a two-step workflow, which clearly distinguishes this from the sibling enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields tools. The title reinforces the same distinction.

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?

Provides explicit sequencing: step 1 with answers and consent, step 2 only after agreement and with the confirmation token. It specifies the exact precondition (answers keyed by enquiry_fields) and an exclusion (not purchase or quote), but does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe as an alternative.

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