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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that submission triggers an email requiring a click before any provider sees the data, and the exact data-sharing scope (up to three contractors, emailed each firm's name, can stop further sharing).

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the two-step flow before the quoted consent text, and most sentences are load-bearing. The consent wording is unavoidably long and is also duplicated in the schema's consent description, a minor redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what the human sees afterwards (email with a required click). An agent has everything needed to drive the flow correctly, including the approval gate.

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 procedural meaning beyond the schema: 'answers' is keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, and 'confirmation' is the step-1 token used only in the second call. It does not add format/syntax detail beyond that.

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 Void Clearance Quotes') and immediately distinguishes it from what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). Since siblings are enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, this clearly marks itself as the mutating submit action versus the read-only helpers.

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 with the exact conditions that select each call: Step 1 with answers + consent=true, Step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. The dependency on enquiry_fields for field keys is also stated.

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