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 validation on step 1, the returned summary/consent line/confirmation token, the email-confirmation requirement before any provider sees the data, the recipient cap (up to three providers), and the exact scope of consent. That is substantially more than the structured fields convey.

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-loads the critical negative scope ('NOT a purchase') and sequences the two steps cleanly. The full consent text is quoted verbatim, duplicating what the consent property description already says, which is the one redundant block.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing what step 1 returns and what step 2 triggers. For a nested-object, two-phase submission tool with no annotations, the workflow, consent semantics, and downstream email gate are all covered.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning on top: answers are keyed by field key sourced from the enquiry_fields tool, consent must be true and carries a defined legal meaning, and confirmation is the token returned by step 1 after approval.

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 (submits) and resource (an enquiry to Washroom Quotes), and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' An agent can distinguish this from the sibling enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields tools, which are referenced as inputs rather than alternatives.

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 + consent=true to validate, step 2 only if the person agrees, with the same answers plus the confirmation token. It also names where answers come from (enquiry_fields) and states the gate condition for the second call, leaving nothing to inference.

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