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 that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that the tool is not a purchase, that an email click-through is required before any provider sees the data, and the exact consent scope (up to three suppliers, contact details shared, opt-out per firm). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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 scope constraint, then cleanly split into Step 1 / Step 2, so structure is strong. The verbatim consent text is long and largely duplicates the schema's consent description, which is the one place the text does not fully earn its space.

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 cover returns, and it does: step 1 yields a summary, consent line and confirmation token, and step 2 triggers an email with a verification link. For a two-phase, consent-gated submission tool this is complete enough to drive correct invocation.

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 meaning the schema lacks: where 'answers' keys come from (enquiry_fields), that 'consent' must be true, and that 'confirmation' is the token returned by step 1 after the person approves the summary. It stops short of describing answer value formats, hence not 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Snagging Software') and immediately delimits scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', which separates it from the compare_* siblings. An agent can identify this as the terminal submission step of the enquiry flow 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?

Gives explicit step-by-step sequencing: Step 1 with answers+consent=true, then Step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. It also names the dependency on enquiry_fields for field keys and states the when-not condition ('NOT a purchase').

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