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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden—and it delivers: it explains the two-step stateful behavior, the consent requirement, the email confirmation step, and that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the link. It also discloses that this is not a guaranteed quote, which sets accurate expectations about outcomes.

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 rich but compact: it front-loads the critical 'not a purchase' caveat, then structures the workflow as Step 1 and Step 2. Every sentence earns its place, including the exact consent wording the agent must present.

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, stateful mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the full call sequence, what each call returns, the required consent text, the email-link behavior, and the post-consent approval step—so an agent knows what to do and what will happen.

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?

Although the schema already documents all parameters at 100% coverage, the description adds essential meaning: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must match the exact consent line, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1. This clarifies how the parameters relate to each other across the two-step flow.

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 TM44 Quote', and immediately clarifies what it is NOT ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This separates it clearly from the sibling tools enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, as those describe or list fields rather than submit anything.

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 a clear two-step usage protocol: first call for validation and a token, then a second call only after the person agrees. It points to enquiry_fields as the source of answer keys, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over enquiry_describe or when the tool should not be used beyond 'not a purchase.'

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