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 most of it: it discloses that step 1 is non-committal and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 is the actual submission, that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry, and that consent refers to a specific quoted statement. It does not cover failure or repeat-submission behavior (e.g. reusing a stale token, duplicate enquiries), which is the remaining gap for an un-annotated 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 not-a-purchase disclaimer, then a clean step-by-step ordering, which is the right structure for a two-call workflow. The closing sentence quoting the consent text largely repeats the consent parameter's schema description, so it is slightly redundant but still earns its place as the exact wording the agent must show.

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 three-parameter tool with a nested answers object and no output schema, the description supplies what step 1 returns, what step 2 accomplishes, and the human-facing obligations (show summary and consent line, wait for agreement, recipient must click the emailed link). Nothing essential to calling 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; the description still adds real meaning by establishing where 'answers' keys come from (enquiry_fields), what 'consent=true' legally attests to, and that 'confirmation' belongs only to the step-2 call. It stops short of describing answer value formats or the token's lifetime, which the schema leaves open.

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 Restaurant SEO agency') and immediately bounds scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also names the sibling that supplies the field keys ('keyed by field key from enquiry_fields'), so the agent can tell this apart from enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe.

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 validates and returns a summary; step 2 only 'if the person agrees', with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The gating condition and the prohibition on submitting before approval are spelled out rather than inferred.

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