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 richly: it discloses that a validation call returns a summary/consent line/token, that data goes to up to three firms, that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry, and that consent can be stopped. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs.

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 key distinction ('NOT a purchase') is front-loaded, and the step sequence reads cleanly. The verbatim consent text is long and partially duplicates the schema's consent description, which costs a little economy, but it is arguably necessary for the agent to present to the user.

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, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers input expectations, the round-trip token flow, the side effects, and the downstream email confirmation. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears 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?

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that consent means the person has agreed, and that confirmation is the token returned by step 1 and only passed on the second call. This goes beyond the schema's field-level 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource (submits an enquiry to human providers) and immediately differentiates scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like calculate, enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe 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?

It lays out an explicit two-step procedure with precise gating: step 1 with answers+consent, then step 2 only if the person agrees, passing the token. It also states when-not (not a purchase, not a quote) and references enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, leaving little to inference.

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