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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so: it explains validation and what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), that the enquiry is only submitted on step 2, and that a click-through email must happen before any provider sees it. The exact consent wording is quoted, so the agent knows precisely what the person must agree to.

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 critical disclaimer and the two steps are front-loaded, and every sentence adds procedural or consent information rather than restating the name. It is dense as a single paragraph and repeats the consent text that also appears in the schema, which is minor redundancy but justified by emphasis.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values itself, and it does: step 1 returns a summary, consent line and confirmation token; step 2 triggers submission plus a verifiable email. For a three-parameter, two-step, side-effecting flow this is complete enough to call 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 sequencing meaning the schema cannot: 'answers' is keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, 'consent' must be true in both steps, and 'confirmation' is only supplied in step 2 after summary approval. That maps each parameter to a specific step, exceeding what the flat schema states.

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 Website designers for small business') and immediately scopes it with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', which prevents the most likely misreading. It also differentiates itself from siblings by referencing 'field key from enquiry_fields' and the two-step design that enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields do not share.

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 explicit conditional sequencing: 'Step 1: call with the answers ... and consent=true' and 'Step 2: only if the person agrees, call again with the same answers, consent=true and the confirmation token'. It names the gating condition (person agrees) and what to do with the intermediate result (show the summary and consent line), 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.