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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses the validate-then-submit flow, the returned summary/consent line/token, the email verification link that gates provider visibility, and the exact scope of consent (up to three contractors, right to stop). It also warns that submission is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, which is critical downstream context.

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 front-loads the most important framing ('NOT a purchase') and then walks the steps in order, so every sentence earns its place. It loses a point for quoting the full consent text, which is already present verbatim in the consent parameter's schema description.

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 nested-object, two-phase mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the entry conditions, the intermediate return values, the second-call requirements, and the post-submission consequence. An agent has everything needed to drive the 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, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields (naming the sibling that supplies the keys), that consent must be true and what it represents, and that confirmation is the token returned from step 1 and is only used on the second call. This clarifies the conditional, cross-call role of the confirmation parameter that the schema alone does not.

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') and immediately scopes it with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', which distinguishes it from what an agent might otherwise assume. The sibling tools enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are read-only helpers, and this is clearly the terminal write action, so the agent can route correctly.

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 an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers and consent=true to validate, step 2 only after the person agrees, with the same answers plus the confirmation token. It states the precondition for each call and what to show the person between steps, leaving no inference needed.

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