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 does so richly: it discloses the validation-then-submit sequence, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), what must be shown to the person, and the downstream email-click gate before any provider sees the enquiry. It also spells out exactly what consent signifies, which is critical for a submission with real-world side effects.

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 disambiguating 'NOT a purchase' clause and then the two-step flow, so an agent grasps the shape immediately. It is somewhat long, and the full consent text is repeated verbatim from the schema's consent description, a minor redundancy, but the quoted text is needed for the agent to show the person.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema, nested-object tool, the description is complete: it covers the workflow, the return payload, the person-facing obligations, and the post-submission email verification. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and handle the response.

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 beyond the schema by explaining that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and that the confirmation token is only required in step 2. The step-dependent role of each parameter is not derivable from the schema alone.

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 to Motor Rewind Cost') and immediately disambiguates it from adjacent actions ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also names the sibling tool enquiry_fields as the source of the field keys, so an agent can tell it apart from the sibling tools without opening their 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?

Explicitly lays out a two-step flow: Step 1 call with answers+consent to validate, Step 2 'only if the person agrees' call again with the confirmation token. Both the when-to-use and the gating condition are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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