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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it describes validation, the returned summary/consent line/token, the requirement to show the person the summary, the conditional second step, and the post-submission email-link gate before any provider sees the enquiry. It also explains what consent means, including sharing contact details with up to three providers and the opt-out mechanism.

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 key distinction and the two steps, making it easy to parse for a complex flow. However, it repeats the full consent text verbatim, which is already present in the consent parameter schema, making it slightly longer than necessary.

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 and no annotations, so the description must explain behavior and return flow, which it does: step 1 returns a summary, consent line, and confirmation token; step 2 submits the enquiry and triggers an email link. All caller-facing constraints and post-conditions are covered.

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 individual parameter meanings are already documented. The description adds valuable process semantics beyond the schema by specifying which parameters belong to step 1 versus step 2 and that the confirmation token is used only after the person approves the summary.

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: submit an enquiry to human providers. It immediately distinguishes the action from a purchase or guaranteed quote and references the enquiry_fields sibling for field keys, so an agent can identify the tool's role without opening the 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?

It gives explicit two-step usage: first call with answers and consent=true to validate; second call only after the person agrees, with the same answers, consent=true, and the confirmation token. It also names the sibling tool enquiry_fields to source field keys, leaving no ambiguity about when and how to invoke it.

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