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 well: it discloses the two-phase submission, the token gate, that submission triggers an email the recipient must click before any provider sees the data, that a provider never receives data before confirmation, and the exact scope of consent. These are exactly the side-effect details an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Purpose and the prohibition are front-loaded, and the step-by-step structure is easy to follow. The lengthy verbatim consent quote duplicates the schema's consent description, which is some redundancy, though the legal context partially justifies it.

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?

Despite there being no output schema and a nested object parameter, the description explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 produces (submitted enquiry plus a verification email). An agent has everything needed to drive both calls 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: 'answers' are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields (routing the agent to a sibling tool for valid keys), and 'confirmation' is specifically the token returned by step 1 after the person approves the summary. The consent parameter's meaning is repeated verbatim from the schema, so no further value is added there.

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 Noise Assessment Cost') and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. This clearly separates it from siblings enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which are read-only metadata 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol with the exact trigger for each call: step 1 with answers and consent=true, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the returned confirmation token. It also states the sequence behaviourally (show the person the summary and consent line before proceeding), 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.