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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary, consent line and token, that submission requires a second call, that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the data, and the exact scope of consent (up to three installers, email notification per firm, opt-out). Nothing about side effects or prerequisites is left to inference.

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?

The most decision-relevant fact (not a purchase) is front-loaded, and the two steps are sequenced cleanly with the human-in-the-loop instruction attached to step 1. It is long, and the full consent sentence is repeated verbatim from the schema, but that repetition is defensible for a consent artifact.

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, token-gated, nested-object tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the call sequence, the required inputs per step, what step 1 returns, and the downstream consequence of submitting. No material gap remains.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it ties 'answers' to field keys sourced from enquiry_fields, explains that consent=true is the gate for both steps, and explains that 'confirmation' is the step-1 token supplied only after the person approves the summary. The verbatim consent text is duplicated from the schema, which is why this isn't a 5.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Smoke Control Checker') and immediately fences off the two most likely misinterpretations ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). An agent can distinguish this from enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe/enquiry_describe-style siblings 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?

It lays out an explicit two-call protocol with the condition that selects each call: step 1 with answers + consent, then step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the returned confirmation token. The when-not guidance ('NOT a purchase') and the human-approval gate are stated rather than implied.

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