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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses validation on step 1, the returned summary/consent line/confirmation token, that submission triggers an email requiring a click before any provider sees it, and that details go to up to three named contractors with opt-out. That is unusually rich behavioral context for a write tool.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool is and is not, then the two steps in order; every clause about consent and email verification earns its place. It loses a point because the consent text is repeated verbatim in the schema's consent description, which is redundant payload.

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 the description compensates by naming what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after step 2 (email with a click-through link). Combined with the nested answers object being explained via the field-key reference, an agent has everything needed to drive the flow 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: answers must be keyed by field key from the sibling enquiry_fields tool, the same answers must be resubmitted on step 2, and confirmation only applies after approval. The consent paragraph largely restates the schema's consent description, so it is not a full 5.

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 to Piling Costs") and immediately negates the two most likely misreadings ("NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote"). An agent can distinguish this from its siblings enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers+consent=true, then step 2 only "if the person agrees" with the returned confirmation token. It also names the operative precondition (consent means the person read and agreed to the quoted text), so when-not-to-call is inferable rather than guessed.

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