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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely delivers: it discloses validation-then-submit sequencing, the exact return artifacts (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the downstream double opt-in email link required before any provider sees the data, and the exposure limit of up to three yards with an opt-out. That is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for an irreversible outbound action.

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 essential 'what it is / what it is not', then cleanly segmented into Step 1 and Step 2. It loses a little efficiency by quoting the full consent text, which is already duplicated verbatim in the schema's consent description.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming exactly what step 1 returns and what happens after step 2. For a mutation tool with a nested object parameter and a consent contract, nothing material is left for the agent to guess.

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 procedural meaning beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent=true is required at both steps, and confirmation is only meaningful on step 2 and must be the token returned by step 1.

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+resource (submits an enquiry) and immediately scopes it negatively against a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also orients the agent to the sibling it depends on by naming enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, so an agent can place it among the three tools without opening schemas.

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, sequential when-to-use rules: call once with answers+consent to validate, and call again with the confirmation token only after the person approves. It does not explicitly contrast against enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields, but the two-step gating condition is unambiguous.

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