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/confirmation token, the double-opt-in email link that must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry, and that contact details go to up to three named suppliers. Side effects and consent semantics are fully surfaced.

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 purpose and the not-a-purchase caveat, then structured as Step 1/Step 2. The verbatim consent paragraph is lengthy and partially duplicates the consent parameter's schema description, costing some efficiency, but it is legally load-bearing rather than filler.

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 multi-step, side-effect-heavy tool with nested answers, no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything needed: the two-call protocol, what each call returns, consent wording, and the downstream email verification. 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 real meaning: 'answers' are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, 'consent' must be true only after the person agreed, and 'confirmation' is the step-1 token passed on the second call. That sequencing context is not derivable from the schema alone.

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+resource ('Submits an enquiry to Temperature Log') and immediately disambiguates what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also names the related sibling concept (field keys from enquiry_fields), so an agent can place it against enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields without opening a 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?

Gives explicit sequential conditions: Step 1 call with answers+consent=true, Step 2 only if the person agrees, passing the confirmation token. This is strong when-to-use guidance for the two-phase flow, though it does not contrast against the other enquiry_* siblings for adjacent informational tasks.

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