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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it thoroughly: two-step statefulness, the confirmation token requirement, the exact consent-line text that must be read, the email link the person must click before any provider sees the enquiry, and the distinction from a purchase or guaranteed quote. This goes well beyond what the schema expresses.

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?

Dense but every sentence earns its place: the two-step flow, consent line, and email-click caveat are high-stakes and cannot be omitted. It front-loads the critical 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote' warning and then follows the natural call order with step markers.

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?

The flow is complex — stateful token, consent gating, email verification — and there is no output schema, yet the description explains the return values (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and the post-submit behavior (email with a click-before-visible link). Nothing an agent needs to execute both steps correctly is missing.

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. The description adds real value on top: it ties answers to 'field key from enquiry_fields', restates the exact consent wording the boolean must represent, and clarifies that confirmation is the step-1 token only needed in step 2, giving the parameter a role in the sequence the schema alone doesn't 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?

Names a specific operation — 'Submits an enquiry to Varicose Vein Treatment Cost' — with a clear verb and resource, and draws an explicit line against purchase/quote confusion. The title's 'two steps; not a purchase' plus the step structure make it impossible to confuse with the read-only siblings enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields.

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?

Spells out the full call sequence: step 1 for validation (answers + consent=true, returning a summary, consent line, and token), then step 2 only 'if the person agrees', reusing the same answers with the confirmation token. It gives hard when-not guidance ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and a required precondition for step 2. It doesn't explicitly compare against the sibling tools, which keeps this just short of 5.

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