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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it discloses the two-phase confirmation flow, that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that nothing is submitted until step 2, and that the person must click an email link before any provider sees the enquiry. It also spells out the exact consent semantics and the cap of three firms — real behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is front-loaded with the two-step skeleton and uses Step 1/Step 2 markers, so the critical flow is scannable. The verbatim consent paragraph is long and partially duplicates the schema's consent property description, which is the main source of redundancy, but it is substantively important text rather than filler.

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, yet the description specifies what each call returns (a summary, the consent line, a confirmation token), what the person must do (approve the summary, then click an emailed link), and the limits on data sharing. For a nested-object input with a required two-call protocol, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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: it ties 'answers' to field keys from enquiry_fields, mandates consent=true, and — crucially — explains that 'confirmation' is the token from step 1 used only on the second call after approval. That sequencing 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Office Relocation Quotes') and immediately negates the two most likely misreadings ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing at enquiry_fields for the answer keys, so an agent can tell it apart from enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields 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?

Usage is spelled out as an explicit two-step protocol: Step 1 with answers + consent=true to validate and obtain a token, Step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. It names the alternative source of field keys (enquiry_fields) and states the consent precondition, 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.