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 that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 triggers a real submission, that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the data, and that details go to up to three assessors with an opt-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 identity and the crucial non-purchase caveat, then walks the two steps in order; every sentence is load-bearing except the verbatim consent string, which is already repeated in the schema's consent description and is therefore partly redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 produces (submission plus a verification email). Combined with the nested answers object and 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to drive the two-call flow correctly.

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; the description adds genuine sequencing semantics beyond the schema — answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true at both steps, and confirmation is the token returned by step 1 after approval. It does not, however, add format constraints for arbitrary answer values.

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 (submits) and resource (an enquiry to TM44 Quote), and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote' so it cannot be confused with a transactional tool. Siblings enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are clearly different in kind.

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?

Explicitly prescribes when to call: step 1 with answers + consent=true, then step 2 only after the person approves the returned summary, using the confirmation token. It also states the gating condition (consent means the person has read and agreed) and names the exact alternative path for looking up fields (enquiry_fields).

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