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: it discloses validation-and-summary behavior on step 1, the returned confirmation token, that re-invocation with the token actually submits, that a provider-side email click is required before anyone sees the enquiry, and the literal consent text. These are non-obvious side effects an agent could not infer from name or schema.

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 critical framing ("NOT a purchase") and then walks the steps in order with no filler. It is dense and the final sentence quoting the consent text is long, but that text is functionally required for the step to be correct.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns — and it does, describing the summary, consent line, and confirmation token from step 1 and the email verification consequence of step 2. Nothing an agent needs to complete this nested-object, two-call workflow 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining parameter interaction across calls: the same answers object must be resent on step 2 alongside the confirmation token obtained from step 1, and consent=true is required on both calls.

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 for dealerships") and immediately disambiguates with "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote", which is the exact confusion an agent would have with a lead-submission tool. It also names the sibling dependency (field keys from 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol with the condition that gates step 2 ("only if the person agrees") and the exact intermediate artifact to present (summary and consent line). The agent knows when to call, what to do between calls, and when not to proceed.

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