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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It explains validation, the returned summary and consent line, the confirmation token, the email link requirement before providers see the enquiry, and the exact meaning of consent.

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 long but every sentence earns its place by conveying a necessary part of a two-step protocol. The explicit 'Step 1' and 'Step 2' structure makes the workflow easy to follow, and the important exclusions are stated at the start.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies the expected outputs of step 1, the condition for step 2, and the post-submission behavior including the email link requirement. The agent has enough information to execute the tool correctly without guessing.

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 already 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent has exact quoted wording, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1 after approval. This is far beyond a restatement of the schema.

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 action ('Submits an enquiry to Plant Hire Rates') and clearly distinguishes the tool from a purchase or guaranteed quote, which are common confusions for an enquiry tool. The two-step nature is also front-loaded in the title and reinforced in the description, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 step-by-step usage protocol: step 1 with answers and consent=true to get a summary and token, then step 2 only if the person agrees, reusing the same answers and token. It also tells the agent what not to expect ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and references enquiry_fields as the source of valid answer keys.

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