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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does remarkably well: it discloses the two-step behavior, validation, the confirmation token flow, the consent line, the email with a required link, and that no provider sees the enquiry until the link is clicked. It also states clearly that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, giving the agent a full picture of side effects.

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 longer than average but front-loads the critical distinction ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and organizes the workflow into clear Step 1 and Step 2 sections. The consent wording is repeated from the schema, which adds a little redundancy, but overall each sentence contributes necessary operational detail.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, this description provides everything an agent needs to call the tool correctly: the required answers, consent semantics, the two-step token flow, what to show the person, and the post-submission email behavior. It is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it ties answers to enquiry_fields, explains that consent is only true when the person has read the exact consent text, and clarifies that confirmation is the token returned in step 1. This is useful workflow context that the schema alone would not convey.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Underpinning Costs' and clearly positions it as a two-step submission rather than a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also references field keys from enquiry_fields, which helps distinguish it from the sibling enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields tools.

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 explicit step-by-step usage guidance: call first with answers and consent=true, show the returned summary, then call again only if the person agrees, using the same answers and confirmation token. It clearly says when to send the second call, but it does not explicitly describe when not to use this tool versus the sibling tools beyond implying that field keys come from enquiry_fields.

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