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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It fully discloses the two-step nature, the validation step, the returned summary/consent line/token, the email sent after the second call, and the important condition that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the email 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 somewhat long but well structured with explicit Step 1 and Step 2 sections and front-loaded warnings. The consent line is repeated once for clarity, and nearly every sentence adds procedural or safety-relevant information.

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 stateful, two-step tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers both calls, required parameters, the intermediate response, and the email-link gating of provider visibility, leaving little ambiguity for an agent.

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. The description adds meaningful process context: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after the person agrees to the exact stated line, and the confirmation parameter is the token returned from step 1. This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 opens with a specific action: submitting an enquiry to Piling Costs, and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also lays out the two-step submission flow with distinct step semantics, making it easy to distinguish from the sibling tools enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields.

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 provides explicit usage instructions: call first with answers and consent=true, show the returned summary and consent line, and only call again with the same answers and the confirmation token if the person agrees. It also warns that this is not a purchase, helping the agent avoid using the tool for a different intent.

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