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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It reveals the two-call commitment mechanism, the consent requirement with exact wording, the email verification step, and the fact that providers only see the enquiry after the recipient clicks the link.

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 description is dense but every sentence adds essential operational detail. It is front-loaded with the core action and non-purchase caveat, then structured clearly into Step 1 and Step 2, which is appropriate for a multi-step tool.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it explains validation outputs, the confirmation token, the email click requirement, consent semantics, and references enquiry_fields for answer keys. An agent has everything needed to execute the full workflow correctly.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying each parameter to the workflow: answers are keyed by enquiry_fields keys, consent requires exact agreement text, and confirmation is the token returned in step 1 and reused in step 2. This makes parameter usage unambiguous.

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 action ('Submits an enquiry'), a concrete resource ('Metal Fabrication Quotes'), and the key qualifier that it is not a purchase or a guaranteed quote. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools by establishing the operation's scope and constraints.

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?

The description explicitly lays out a two-step procedure with clear conditions: step 1 validates and returns a token; step 2 is only performed if the person agrees, using the same answers and the confirmation token. It also states exclusions ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), giving the agent firm when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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