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: it discloses validation on step 1, the returned summary/consent line/token, that the enquiry is not visible to providers until the person clicks an email link, and exactly what consent attests to. These are non-obvious side effects an agent must know before invoking.

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?

Well front-loaded: the negation of purchase/quote comes first, then the numbered steps. It is long, and the consent sentence is duplicated verbatim from the schema, which is slightly wasteful, but nearly every clause conveys operational guidance.

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 two-phase, stateful submission tool with a nested answers object and no output schema, the description covers inputs, the token round-trip, the consent semantics and the post-submission email gate. An agent has everything needed to call it 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 goes further by explaining that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and that the confirmation token originates from step 1. It clarifies inter-parameter workflow rather than just restating types.

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') and immediately disambiguates what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The sibling tools (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) are data-lookup helpers, and this description makes clear this is the terminal submission action.

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: step 1 with answers and consent=true, then step 2 only after the person approves, with the confirmation token. The condition gating step 2 ('only if the person agrees') is stated outright, 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.