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 the two-step protocol, that step 1 is validation-only and returns summary/consent line/token, that the real submission happens in step 2, that an email with a click-through link is sent, and that no provider sees the enquiry before that click. Side effects, gating and consent semantics are all surfaced.

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 not-a-purchase caveat, then cleanly split into Step 1 and Step 2. The verbatim consent sentence is long but is the legally operative text the agent must show, so it earns its place. Slightly dense overall but no filler.

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 complex, stateful, two-call tool with nested answers, no output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies the return values of step 1, the required carry-forward token, and the downstream email-confirmation state. An agent has everything needed to drive both invocations 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining the relationship between parameters over time: 'answers' keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent=true in both steps, and crucially the 'confirmation' token only present on Step 2 after approval — context the schema's bare descriptions do not convey.

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+resource ('Submits an enquiry to PPC agency Leeds') and immediately narrows scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which describe/return fields rather than submit anything.

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?

Explicit when-to-use for both calls: Step 1 unconditionally with answers and consent=true, Step 2 'only if the person agrees'. It also names the source of truth for keys (enquiry_fields) and rules out the purchase/quote interpretation. Nothing is left to inference.

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