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 validation behavior, what gets returned (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the exact consent semantics quoted in full, and the downstream email-confirmation gate before any provider sees the data. This is unusual depth 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 the constraint and the two steps, and every sentence earns its place — except the consent text, which is reproduced verbatim and already lives in the schema's consent property description. Slight redundancy, but structure and ordering are strong.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns — and it names all three (summary, consent line, confirmation token) plus the downstream email link. Given the nested answers object and the multi-step flow, this is complete enough to invoke 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 real meaning: answers must be keyed by field keys sourced from enquiry_fields, and it spells out which parameter set each step requires. The confirmation token's role is already covered in the schema, so this is additive rather than essential.

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 Steel Beam Checker') and immediately bounds what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). An agent can distinguish this from checker_* siblings purely from the description.

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 an explicit two-step procedure with the condition that selects each call ('Step 1: call with...' vs 'Step 2: only if the person agrees...'). The gating condition for the second call is unambiguous, so nothing is left to inference.

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