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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 triggers submission, and that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the data. It also enumerates the exact consent scope (up to three firms, direct contact, opt-out). This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 purpose and the two steps in order, and nearly every sentence carries operational information. It runs long and repeats the consent wording already present in the schema's consent description, which is the only real redundancy.

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, and the description compensates by naming what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token) and what happens after step 2 (email with a click-through link). For a nested-object, multi-step tool, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema cannot: it explains that 'confirmation' is only populated in step 2 with the token from step 1, and clarifies that answers are keyed by field key drawn from the sibling enquiry_fields tool. That temporal/conditional semantics genuinely exceeds the schema text.

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+resource ('Submits an enquiry to Site Investigation Cost') and immediately fences it off from adjacent concepts ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). An agent can distinguish it from enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields 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?

Explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers+consent to obtain a token, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the token to actually submit. The conditional gating and the required human-in-the-loop are stated outright rather than left to inference.

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