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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It excellently discloses the two-step behavior, validation on step 1, returned summary/confirmation token, email notification, and the critical fact that no provider sees the enquiry until the person clicks the emailed link. It also includes the exact consent wording and the 'not a purchase' caveat.

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 core purpose and non-purchase caveat, then proceeds through the two steps in logical order. It is longer than the typical tool description, but almost every sentence carries critical operational information. It could be tightened slightly, but the length is justified by the two-step complexity.

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?

Given the tool complexity, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return values of step 1, the conditional step 2, the email and link behavior, provider visibility, and the exact consent line. An agent has everything needed to correctly sequence calls and avoid prematurely submitting an enquiry.

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 input schema already covers all three parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that answers are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, that confirmation is the token returned in step 1, and that consent must reflect the quoted agreement. This goes beyond the schema description but does not need to compensate for a coverage gap.

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 Party Wall Quotes') and clearly distinguishes what the tool is NOT: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also frames the two-step submission flow, making it easy to tell apart from the sibling enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields 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?

The description gives an explicit step-by-step usage protocol: call with answers and consent to get a token, then call again with the token only if the person agrees. It also references enquiry_fields as the source of field keys. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe or state when not to use the tool, so it stops just short of full alternative-routing guidance.

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