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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so exceptionally well. It discloses the two-step validation flow, the consent requirement, the confirmation token, the email-with-link step, and the fact that providers only see the enquiry after the link is clicked. It also clarifies that submission is not a purchase or a guaranteed quote.

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 every sentence carries necessary operational information, and it is well organized with explicit Step 1 and Step 2 sequencing. The key warning about not being a purchase is front-loaded, and the verbosity is justified by the multi-step consent protocol.

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?

This is a complex, two-step tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and flow, which it does: it names the summary, consent line, confirmation token, and the emailed link. It also references enquiry_fields for answer keys, making it self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful process context beyond the schema: answers must come from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after the person agrees, and the confirmation token from step 1 must be reused in step 2. This helps the agent understand how the parameters interrelate over the two calls.

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 clearly states it submits an enquiry to human providers and immediately distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also describes the two-step nature of the tool, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool accomplishes and how it differs from related enquiry 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 instructions: call once with answers and consent, show the summary, and call again only if the person agrees, including the confirmation token. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the usage context within the tool itself is clear and actionable.

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