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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses validation behavior, the exact return contents of step 1 (summary, consent line, token), the human-in-the-loop consent requirement, and the downstream email-verification gate before any provider sees the enquiry. It also states the exact consent wording.

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 disclaimers before the steps, and every sentence is functional. It is dense but somewhat long, and the consent definition is restated verbatim in the schema description, so a small amount of text is redundant.

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 compensates by spelling out what step 1 returns and what happens after step 2 (email link required before provider visibility). An agent has everything needed to drive the full flow 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. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the workflow meaning of each parameter: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after the person has agreed, and the confirmation token is the step-1 output that gates step 2.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Submits an enquiry to Web design Woking') with an immediate scope disclaimer ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This distinguishes it unmistakably from the sibling read-only tools (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) without opening any schema.

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 invocation protocol with the precise condition for each call: step 1 validates and returns a summary/token, step 2 happens 'only if the person agrees'. It also routes the agent to enquiry_fields for the field keys used in the answers object.

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