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, the returned summary/consent line/token, that consent is a legally meaningful affirmation, and that the person must click an email link before any provider sees the enquiry. These are non-obvious runtime behaviors an agent must know to drive the flow correctly.

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 purpose and the critical 'not a purchase' caveat, then ordered step 1 → step 2 → consent definition. Dense but every clause carries operational information; no filler or repetition.

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 two-phase mutation with a nested answers object and no output schema, the description still explains what step 1 returns and what the end state is (email link, provider visibility). Nothing needed to call either step correctly 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'answers' are keyed by field key obtained from the sibling enquiry_fields tool, and 'confirmation' is specifically the token from step 1 used only after approval and with the same answers. This exceeds what the schema text conveys.

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 PPC marketing company') and immediately delimits scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. This is unambiguous against siblings enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which are referenced by name for the field-key source.

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 to validate, step 2 only if the person agrees, with the confirmation token. It states the precondition (person agrees / has read the consent line) and what must be shown to the person before proceeding, leaving nothing to inference.

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