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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that submission is a distinct second call, that the enquiry is not visible to providers until the person clicks an emailed link (double opt-in), and that up to three firms receive the details with per-firm notification. These are meaningful, non-obvious behavioral traits an agent could not derive from the schema.

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 critical distinction (not a purchase) and the step structure are front-loaded, and the flow is easy to follow in one pass. It runs long, however, and the full consent sentence is quoted verbatim even though the schema already carries the same text, so some content is duplicated rather than compressed.

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, human-facing submission tool with a nested answers object and no output schema, the description covers everything the agent needs: validation-only first call, approval gate, token round-trip, downstream email confirmation, and the exact consent meaning. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 sequencing semantics the schema does not fully convey: the same answers are sent on both calls, consent must be true both times, and confirmation is populated only on the second call from the step-1 token. That ties the parameters into a workflow rather than three independent fields, lifting it above baseline.

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 very first sentence names the specific action (submit an enquiry), the recipient (Structural Report Cost), and immediately disambiguates it from what an agent might assume — 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also references the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, so the agent can place it against its 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?

The description gives an explicit two-step protocol: Step 1 is called with answers + consent=true and returns a summary/consent line/token; Step 2 is gated on 'only if the person agrees' and requires the token. The condition selecting each call is stated outright, and the required user-facing behaviour (show the summary and consent line) is spelled out rather than inferred.

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