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 so thoroughly: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, the human-in-the-loop consent requirement, the double-call pattern, and downstream effects (email confirmation link required before any provider sees it, contact shared with up to three solicitors). This is unusually rich safety and side-effect disclosure.

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-loads the crucial scope disclaimer and the two-step flow before the details. It is somewhat long and quotes the full consent text verbatim, which duplicates the schema's consent description, but that repetition is defensible since the agent must surface it to the user.

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, and the description compensates by explaining exactly what each step returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token). For a two-call, consent-gated submission tool, an agent has everything needed to execute both steps 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%, and the schema already describes answers, consent, and the confirmation token. The description nevertheless adds operational meaning beyond the schema: that answers must be keyed by field key sourced from enquiry_fields, and that confirmation is only supplied on the second call after approval.

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 SAR Builder') and immediately distinguishes it from what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This clearly separates it from siblings like enquiry_fields (field discovery) and enquiry_describe, so an agent can route correctly without opening the 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: step 1 with answers + consent=true, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. It names the dependency (answers keyed by field key from enquiry_fields) and states the gating condition, 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.