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 richly: it discloses the two-call protocol, that the first call validates without submitting, what is returned (summary, consent line, token), the double opt-in email link gate before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact consent wording. This is unusually complete for a mutation-style tool.

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 critical non-purchase disclaimer, then structured as a numbered two-step flow, which is easy to follow. It is somewhat long and repeats the consent wording that also appears verbatim in the schema, costing a little efficiency.

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 explain results, and it does: step 1 returns a summary, consent line and confirmation token, while step 2 triggers a confirmation email. Combined with the parameter and consent details, an agent has everything needed to execute both steps 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 already 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying 'answers' to field keys from enquiry_fields and clarifying that the confirmation token is used only on the approved step-2 call, which connects the parameters into a workflow rather than three isolated fields.

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 human providers), and immediately disambiguates from the closest misinterpretation with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. An agent understands both the action and its non-transactional nature without opening the 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 explicit conditional routing: step 1 with answers+consent, then step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. It also implicitly routes the agent to enquiry_fields for the answer keys. It does not name or contrast the other siblings (enquiry_describe), so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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