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 that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that nothing is submitted until step 2, and that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry. It also spells out exactly what consent means, which is the key behavioral constraint.

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 crucial "not a purchase" framing and then uses clean Step 1 / Step 2 structure. It is fairly long and repeats the consent sentence that also appears in the schema, but that repetition is defensible because the agent must display it verbatim to the person.

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 correctly explains what each call returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens downstream (email with a click-through link). For a two-phase, nested-object tool with no annotations, this is complete enough to invoke 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 real meaning: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent=true is a hard requirement tied to the quoted statement, and confirmation is explicitly the token returned from step 1 after approval. This clarifies when each parameter is valid across the two calls.

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 PPC agency Bristol") and immediately scopes it with "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote," which prevents the most likely misclassification. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling read-only helpers enquiry_describe and 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?

Gives an explicit ordered protocol: step 1 with answers + consent=true, then step 2 only "if the person agrees" with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The gating condition and the alternative (do not proceed) are both stated rather than inferred.

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