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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: validation behavior on step 1, the exact return payload (summary, consent line, token), the requirement to show those to the person, and the double opt-in email flow before any provider sees the data. The full consent semantics are quoted verbatim.

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 'not a purchase' caveat, then walks the two steps in order. It is somewhat long, and the consent text is repeated verbatim from the schema, which is minor redundancy, but every element is load-bearing for a two-step compliant flow.

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, yet the description documents what step 1 and step 2 return and what the person ultimately receives by email. For a two-step, nested-object, no-annotation tool, this is complete enough to invoke 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds sequencing meaning the schema lacks: answers are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must be true, and confirmation is only supplied on the second call. This clarifies how the parameters interact across the two invocations.

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 Racking Inspection Cost') and immediately bounds scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also references the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, so an agent can distinguish this mutation tool from the read-oriented siblings.

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 explicit, conditional guidance for both steps: Step 1 with answers + consent=true, and Step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the returned token. The when-to-use and when-not-to-proceed conditions are stated rather than inferred.

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