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: step 1 is non-destructive validation returning a summary, consent line and token; step 2 is the actual submission; a confirmation email gates provider visibility. It also spells out exactly what consent authorises, which is the ethically critical behavior for this 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?

Front-loads the critical 'NOT a purchase' warning and walks the two steps in order without wasted framing. Slightly penalised because the full consent sentence is reproduced verbatim and already appears in the schema's consent description, adding length without new 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, and the description compensates by describing what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 triggers (submission plus a confirmation email). Nothing an agent needs to sequence the two calls correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (answers, consent, confirmation) are already documented inline, including the confirmation token's origin. The description adds the flow-level relationship between the token from step 1 and its reuse in step 2, but does not add format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Mezzanine Floor Cost') and immediately scopes it with a negative definition ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which prevents the most likely misclassification. The two-step nature and the named siblings' domain (enquiry_fields for answers) make it separable from the inspection tools.

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 states when to call each mode: step 1 with answers and consent=true to validate, step 2 only if the person agrees, with the same answers plus the confirmation token. It also gives the gating condition for downstream visibility (the person must click the emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry).

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