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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the two-step validation/submission flow, the fact that no provider sees the enquiry until the person clicks the emailed link, and the exact consent text. It also sets expectations that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote. This is unusually transparent for a submission 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?

The description is dense but every sentence serves a purpose: scoping, step protocol, consent definition, and post-submission expectation. The critical caveat 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote' is front-loaded, and the numbered steps make the flow easy to follow.

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 responsibly explains what each step returns: a summary, consent line, and confirmation token after Step 1. It also explains the email-link behavior and the requirement for explicit agreement. For a stateful two-step tool with nested objects and no output schema, this is complete enough for an agent to execute 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?

The schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds procedural meaning beyond the schema by specifying that answers must be keyed by enquiry_fields keys, that consent=true must accompany both steps, and that confirmation must come from Step 1. This meaningfully enriches parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb and resource: submitting an enquiry to NEBOSH Course Cost. It also clearly differentiates itself from a purchase and a guaranteed quote, and the title emphasizes the two-step nature. An agent can tell exactly what this tool accomplishes and how it differs from the enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields siblings.

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 provides an explicit two-step protocol: Step 1 validates and returns a summary/token, Step 2 only proceeds if the person agrees and supplies the token. It also gives the exact consent condition and explicitly states that the tool is not for purchases. This is strong operational guidance for when and how to invoke the tool.

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