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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, explains the two-step validation/submission flow, specifies what step 1 returns, defines consent, and notes that the person must click an email link before any provider sees the enquiry.

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 appropriately sized for a two-step submission workflow with consent and email confirmation. It is front-loaded with the key distinction ('NOT a purchase') and clearly structured with Step 1 and Step 2 labels.

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 or annotation, so the description must cover return behavior and side effects; it explains the step 1 summary/token and the step 2 email link requirement. It also references the sibling tool needed to obtain field keys, making the definition complete for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents the parameters. The description adds workflow meaning beyond the schema: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true, and confirmation is only used in step 2 after the person approves the summary.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to PPC for law firms') and immediately distinguishes it from a purchase or quote. It also makes the two-step enquiry workflow explicit, separating it from sibling tools like enquiry_fields, which it references for field keys.

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?

It gives precise when-to-use instructions: call once with answers and consent=true to validate, show the summary and consent line, then call again only if the person agrees, with the same answers, consent=true, and the confirmation token. The condition for step 2 and the consent meaning are both explicit.

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