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 behavior, what Step 1 returns, that Step 2 triggers an email requiring a link click before providers see anything, that up to three firms are chosen by Plant Hire Rates, and that the person can stop further firms. This is a dense, non-obvious behavioral profile absent from any structured field.

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 the critical 'NOT a purchase' negation, then logically ordered Step 1 / Step 2. It is lengthy because the consent text is quoted verbatim, which duplicates the schema's consent description and slightly taxes conciseness, but nearly every sentence earns its place for a two-phase mutation.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates fully by naming what Step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what Step 2 causes (email with a click-through link gating provider visibility). For a multi-step consent-sensitive tool with a nested answers object, nothing an agent needs to proceed is missing.

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 adds meaning beyond the schema: it says 'answers' are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields (cross-tool linkage the schema cannot express) and clarifies 'confirmation' is the token returned in Step 1. Only minor added detail on the consent boolean beyond repeating its schema text.

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 the specific verb+resource ('Submits an enquiry to Plant Hire Rates') and immediately bounds it ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The distinction from the sibling tools (enquiry_fields, enquiry_describe) is implicit via the field-key reference, and an agent can identify this as the terminal submission action without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly lays out when to call in Step 1 (with answers + consent=true) and when to call again in Step 2 (only if the person agrees, with answers + consent + confirmation token). It also specifies the intermediate obligation to show the summary and consent line, which is real routing guidance, not just context.

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