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 that this is not a purchase, that consent is legally scoped (contact details go to up to three named-type brokers), that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the data, and that the token gates actual submission. That is unusually rich side-effect and data-sharing disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 key disambiguation, then the two steps in order. It is long, and the consent sentence is quoted verbatim even though the same text already appears in the schema's consent description, which is mild duplication. Every other sentence earns its place by describing behaviour the schema cannot express.

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, so the description must cover returns — and it does: step 1 returns a summary, the consent line and a confirmation token; step 2 triggers submission and a verification email. For a two-step, side-effecting tool with nested answers, nothing an agent needs to call it 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: 'answers' are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields (pointing at the sibling that supplies them), consent must be true at both steps, and 'confirmation' is explicitly the token returned from step 1. It does not explain value formats or validation failure behaviour.

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 (submits), resource (enquiry), and recipient (human providers), and immediately disambiguates from siblings by declaring it is NOT a purchase and NOT a guaranteed quote. An agent can distinguish it from calculate/enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe without opening any schema.

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 with the gating condition spelled out: step 1 validates and returns a token, step 2 is called 'only if the person agrees'. It also tells the agent what to show the person between steps, which is the real usage constraint here.

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