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 excellently. It discloses the two-step flow, the validation and token-issuing behavior, the requirement for the person to click an emailed link before the provider sees anything, and the exact consent text. This goes well beyond a simple 'submits an enquiry'.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose. It front-loads the critical caution (not a purchase, not a quote), then lays out Step 1 and Step 2 clearly, and ends with the exact consent wording. The structure mirrors the tool's expected call sequence, making it easy for an agent to follow.

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 multi-step tool with no output schema, the description explains the full lifecycle: what happens in each call, what the person must see and agree to, and what must happen before the enquiry is actually received. The only slight omission is the return value of the second call, but this is minor given the clarity of the overall 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?

Although the schema already covers all three parameters (100% coverage), the description adds critical meaning: 'answers' are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, 'consent' must be true only with the person's explicit agreement to the quoted line, and 'confirmation' is the token from step 1. This transforms bare field names into an actionable 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 action ('Submits an enquiry') and a clear resource ('Sponsor Licence Cost'), and immediately distinguishes it from adjacent operations ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The title further clarifies the two-step nature and that this is not a purchase, so an agent can confidently identify what the 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 gives explicit step-by-step instructions: call with answers and consent=true, show the summary and consent line, then call again with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields), but the submission context is unambiguous and complete enough to avoid misusing the tool.

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