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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the two-step gating, that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 actually submits, and that a provider never sees the enquiry until the person clicks the emailed link. It also spells out what consent semantically means, which is unusual and valuable 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-loaded with the core purpose and the 'NOT a purchase' caveat, then walks through step 1, step 2, and the consent definition in order. It is long for a tool description and the consent sentence duplicates the schema's consent description verbatim, but the length is largely earned by the non-obvious two-step protocol.

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 mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle an agent needs: required inputs, the validation step and its return shape, the token handoff, the actual submission, and the downstream email-verification gate. Nothing needed to invoke 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, but the description adds real meaning beyond the flat schema: it explains that 'answers' are keyed by field key sourced from enquiry_fields, and that 'confirmation' must come from a prior step-1 call and is only used on the second invocation. That ordering constraint is not conveyed by the schema's property list 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to SEO company for small business') and immediately draws the boundary that it is 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. An agent can tell exactly what this does and what it is not, and the reference to enquiry_fields ties it to the right helper tool.

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-call protocol: step 1 with answers + consent=true, then step 2 with the same answers plus the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It also states the pre-condition (person must approve the summary) and the post-condition (email link click before providers see it), 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.