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 the validation pass, the token mechanism, that the enquiry is only submitted on the second call, that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees it, and it spells out the consent statement verbatim. Mutation side effects and the human-verification step are both covered.

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 purpose and the negation, then the two steps in order; every sentence is load-bearing. It is long, and the inline quoted consent sentence adds bulk, but that text is a required argument value rather than filler, so it earns its place.

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, yet the description describes both return shapes: step 1 returns a summary, the consent line and a confirmation token; step 2 submits and triggers an email link. Combined with the nested-object answers parameter and the required/optional split, an agent has everything needed to invoke 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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: answers are keyed by field key from the sibling enquiry_fields tool, consent=true is tied to a specific quoted consent statement, and confirmation is scoped to "the confirmation token from step 1" used only on the second call rather than being an optional free-form string.

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 personal injury lawyers") and immediately bounds it with "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote." This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling read-only tools enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which fetch field definitions rather than submitting data.

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 a conditional gate on step 2 ("only if the person agrees"), including the human-facing obligations between steps (show the summary and consent line). An agent knows exactly when to call, when not to advance, and what has to happen in between.

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