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 validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, the email confirmation link that must be clicked before providers see the enquiry, the distribution to up to three structural engineers, and the ability to stop further sharing. Authentication/safety profile is not applicable here, but the flow-dependent side effects are fully spelled out.

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 not-a-purchase disclaimer and the two steps, and every clause earns its place except the consent text, which is quoted verbatim again despite already being in the schema's consent property description. Slightly redundant but defensible for legal accuracy.

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 and no annotations, yet the description explains what each call returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and the downstream effect (email link required before provider visibility). For a multi-step, nested-object, side-effecting tool, nothing an agent needs 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 genuine meaning: it explains that answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that consent must be true, and that confirmation is the token returned by Step 1 used only after the person approves the summary. That exceeds what the schema alone conveys.

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 Subsidence Survey Cost') and immediately disambiguates intent with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also routes to the sibling tool by specifying answers keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, so the agent can distinguish it from enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe without opening schemas.

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 when-to-use instructions for both steps: Step 1 always with answers and consent=true, Step 2 only if the person agrees and with the confirmation token. It also frames what the tool is not (no purchase, no guaranteed quote), removing the main risk of misuse.

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