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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the two-step stateful behavior: validation on first call, showing the summary and consent line, requiring the confirmation token on the second call, and the email-link step before providers see anything. It also defines the exact consent wording, leaving no important behavioral ambiguity.

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 structured into clear Step 1 and Step 2 phases, front-loads the essential caveats, and includes the consent wording verbatim. Every sentence carries necessary workflow information with no padding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, absence of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what each step returns, what the agent should show the person, when to proceed, and the email confirmation expectation. No critical calling context 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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent requires the exact consent line, and confirmation is the token returned in step 1 and reused only after person approval. This clarifies how the parameters fit together in the workflow.

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 names a concrete action ('submits an enquiry'), a specific resource ('Racking Inspection Cost'), and explicitly clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also frames the two-step nature, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance through the two-step process and states exclusions ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote'). It references enquiry_fields for field keys, but does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe or state when to use that sibling instead.

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