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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes the two-step validation/submission flow, the consent requirement with exact wording, the confirmation token, and the email link requirement. It does not mention potential error conditions or idempotency, but for a submission tool this is a strong and honest disclosure of expected behavior.

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?

Although lengthy, the description is densely informative and well-structured with numbered steps. The critical warnings ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') are front-loaded, the consent line is quoted exactly, and every clause adds necessary operational detail. No redundant or filler content is present.

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 two-step submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what happens in each call, what the expected return is (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the condition for proceeding to Step 2, and the post-submission email requirement. An agent has enough information to correctly guide a user through the entire flow.

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 a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds meaningful process context: 'answers' are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, 'consent' must be true only after the person agrees to the exact consent line, and 'confirmation' is the token returned from Step 1. These details go beyond the schema properties and tie each parameter to the workflow.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Site Investigation Cost') and explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase or a guaranteed quote. The two-step nature is highlighted, and the sibling tools (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) are clearly different operations, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 provides explicit step-by-step usage instructions: Step 1 requires answers and consent=true, Step 2 requires the same answers, consent=true, and the confirmation token, and should only be called after the person agrees. It also warns that this is not a purchase and that an email link must be clicked before providers see the enquiry, giving clear context on when and how to use the tool.

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