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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses the two-step side-effect behavior, that the enquiry is not final until the second call, that an email with a clickable link is sent, and that providers only see the enquiry after the click. It also states the exact consent wording, making behavioral expectations fully transparent.

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 description is long but every sentence earns its place; it packs critical protocol, consent text, and provider-visibility behavior into one dense paragraph. It could be slightly improved with bullet-like separation of steps, but the numbered markers keep it readable and front-loaded with the most important caveat.

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 complex two-step tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains all three parameters' roles, the step-1 return values, the step-2 condition, and the post-submission email flow. An agent has enough context to execute the full protocol 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must match an exact agreement line, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1. This turns bare parameter names into a usable 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 clearly states the tool 'Submits an enquiry to Snagging Software' and immediately distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. This precise verb+resource framing and the explicit 'not a purchase' clarification prevents confusion with the sibling comparison and enquiry-description tools.

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 gives an explicit two-step invocation protocol: call with answers and consent=true, receive a summary and token, then call again with the same data plus token after person approval. It also specifies the consent requirement verbatim and when the enquiry becomes visible to providers, leaving no ambiguity about 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.