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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well. It discloses the two-step nature, validation, consent meaning, confirmation-token requirement, and the critical behavior that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the emailed link. It leaves out the exact step-two return shape, but for this workflow the state-change and prerequisite behavior are thoroughly explained.

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 one dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and exclusions, then walks through the two steps in order. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler and the structure mirrors the actual call flow.

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, consent-gated submission tool with no output schema, the description covers almost everything an agent needs: validation, token handoff, consent wording, email activation, and the 'not a quote' caveat. It does not describe failure/edge-case behavior or explicitly point to sibling tools for fetching fields/descriptions, but it is close to complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: answers are tied to field keys from enquiry_fields, consent is tied to the exact consent line, and the confirmation token is tied to the step-one summary approval. This linkage makes the three parameters' roles in the flow clear.

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 uses a specific verb ('submits') and a clear resource ('Motor Rewind Cost enquiry'), then sharpens the purpose with explicit negatives: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' This makes the tool's role immediately distinct from what it is not, and it is clearly differentiated from sibling enquiry_* tools by name and scope.

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 gives an explicit two-step protocol: call with answers and consent=true, show the summary/consent line, then call again only if the person agrees, including the confirmation token. It also states the consent condition and the email-link step. It does not explicitly mention sibling tools (enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields) or when to use them first, but the procedural guidance is otherwise very clear.

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