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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly meets it: it discloses that step 1 is validation-only, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token), that step 2 triggers an email with a click-through gate before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact wording consent covers. It is silent on failure modes (invalid field keys, expired or reused token, double submission), which matters for a two-step mutation.

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 exclusions and then walks the two steps in order, with the consent definition quoted verbatim so the agent can reproduce it. It is dense but every clause carries operational weight; the quoted legal text and the restatement of 'the same answers, consent=true' in step 2 are the only slightly redundant portions.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, yet the description covers the full lifecycle: what step 1 returns, what the agent must show the user, the gating condition for step 2, and the post-submission email verification barrier. Given the complexity of a consent-gated two-call mutation, this is sufficient for an agent to execute 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: 'answers' must be keyed by field keys sourced from enquiry_fields, consent must be a genuine affirmative, and 'confirmation' is the token returned by step 1 and only passed after the person approves the summary. That sequencing context is not derivable from the schema alone.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Submits an enquiry') and immediately scopes it with two exclusions ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') plus the audience ('SEO for B2B companies'). An agent can distinguish this from the sibling enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe tools, which only read field definitions, 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?

The description gives an explicit two-step protocol with the exact condition that selects each step ('Step 2: only if the person agrees...'). It also ties the answers to the sibling tool ('keyed by field key from enquiry_fields') and states the consent precondition, so there is no inference required about when to invoke or re-invoke.

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