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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it impressively. It reveals the stateful two-step behavior, that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that an email with a click-link is required before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact meaning of consent. These are precisely the behavioral traits an agent cannot infer 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 description is long but earns its length: every sentence carries protocol, consent semantics, or side-effect information that the schema cannot express. The differentiator ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') is front-loaded, and the verbatim consent quote prevents paraphrase drift in a legally sensitive string. There is no fluff or repetition beyond what operationalizes the consent requirement.

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 high-complexity tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the full critical path: both call steps, the step-1 return values, the email/click-through side effect, and consent preconditions. Minor gaps remain — the step-2 success response is not described and validation-failure/error behavior is not covered — but nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly on the happy path 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%, setting a baseline of 3, but the description adds meaningful sequencing semantics beyond the schema: answers must come from enquiry_fields and must be identical across both calls, consent=true is required in BOTH steps, and confirmation is only used in step 2. Notably, it resolves the schema's ambiguity where confirmation is not marked required — the description clarifies it becomes required for the second call.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Submits an enquiry to Temperature Log' — and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It clearly conveys the two-step nature of the operation, which is its defining trait, and is readily distinguishable from the sibling checker_* and enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields tools that describe or validate rather than submit.

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, sequenced protocol: step 1 call with answers and consent=true, show the summary and consent line, then step 2 call again with the same answers plus the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It also references the sibling tool enquiry_fields as the source of answer keys and states what the tool is NOT for (purchases, guaranteed quotes). This is unambiguous when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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