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 well: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/token, that nothing is submitted until step 2, that an email link must be clicked before providers see anything, and that details go to up to three named consultants. It stops short of covering failure/validation-error behavior or any rate/volume constraints, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 purpose and the two-step structure, and every sentence carries operational weight (validation, display instruction, consent gate, email confirmation). It is somewhat long and the verbatim consent text is duplicated between description and schema, which is the only real redundancy.

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, human-gated, multi-call mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains what each call returns (summary, consent line, token) and the downstream consequences. Missing only edge-case behavior such as validation failure handling, which an agent would have to infer.

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 semantics: `answers` must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, `consent` is a factual attestation with quoted legal wording, and `confirmation` is explicitly the token carried forward from step 1. That last point clarifies the required ordering of calls in a way the schema does not.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Submits an enquiry to Tacho Calibration") and immediately delimits scope with "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote." It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling helpers enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe, which it references for field keys.

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 lays out an explicit two-step protocol with the exact trigger for step 2 ("only if the person agrees") and the precondition behind step 1 (answers keyed by field key, consent=true). No alternative routing is left to inference, and the blocking human-action requirement is stated.

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