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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, the double opt-in email and the required click before providers see it, and the exact consent wording. That is far more than the schema tells the agent.

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 not-a-purchase disclaimer and then ordered by step, so the agent can follow it linearly. It runs long and repeats the consent sentence verbatim from the schema, which is the only wasted space.

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 each step returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after submission. Nothing needed to call this correctly, including the human-confirmation requirement, 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that 'answers' is keyed by field key from the sibling tool, that 'consent' must be true, and that 'confirmation' is the token returned in step 1 and used only on the second call.

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) and immediately qualifies scope: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling enquiry_fields tool by telling the agent answers are 'keyed by field key from 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?

Prescribes an explicit two-step protocol with the condition that gates step 2 ('only if the person agrees'), which is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs. It also names the sibling that supplies the field keys, so the agent knows the prerequisite call.

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