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: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, that submission triggers an email requiring a click before any provider sees the enquiry, and spells out exactly what consent authorizes (contact details to up to three suppliers, notification per firm, right to stop). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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 key negation and organized into numbered steps, which is efficient for a multi-step flow. The drawback is the full consent sentence quoted verbatim, which duplicates the consent parameter description in the schema and adds bulk 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, so the description must explain returns, and it does: a summary, the consent line, and a confirmation token in step 1, plus the post-submission email verification flow. Combined with the when/when-not guidance, an agent has everything needed to invoke this two-call tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds procedural meaning the schema lacks: answers are keyed by field keys sourced from the enquiry_fields tool, and confirmation must be the step-1 token supplied only after the person approves the summary. It does not add syntax detail for the answers object itself, which the schema already covers.

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 MOT Software) and immediately disambiguates with two explicit negations: NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote. It also ties the input to a sibling (field keys from enquiry_fields), so an agent can distinguish it from the compare_* and enquiry_describe tools without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol with conditions: step 1 always with answers + consent=true; step 2 only if the person agrees, and only then with the confirmation token. It also states what is out of scope (not a purchase or guaranteed quote), 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.