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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the two-step validation flow, the need for a confirmation token, the email link requirement, and that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the link.

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 well-structured, front-loading the key warning and then walking through Step 1 and Step 2 in order. Every sentence adds necessary information; the length is justified by the complexity of the two-step interaction.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a remarkably complete picture: expected inputs, consent semantics, step-by-step behavior, returned confirmation token, and post-submission email flow. No critical operational detail appears to be 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?

The schema already describes all three parameters, and the description adds important contextual meaning: answers must be keyed by field key, the confirmation token comes from step 1, and consent requires the exact quoted agreement. This goes beyond simple schema repetition, though the schema is already fairly descriptive.

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 Office Relocation Quotes, and explicitly clarifies it is not a purchase or guaranteed quote. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which are descriptive rather than action-oriented.

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 explicit two-step usage instructions, including when to call the tool, what to pass in each step, and the consent requirement. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the process guidance is clear enough for an agent to follow correctly.

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