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: it discloses the validation-only nature of step 1, the returned summary/consent line/token, the post-submit confirmation email and that a link must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry, plus what consent legally means. These are non-obvious side effects an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 constraint (not a purchase) and organized as Step 1/Step 2, which mirrors how the agent must act. It is somewhat long and restates the consent sentence twice, but every clause carries operational information rather than filler.

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, yet the description still explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after step 2 (email and link click before provider visibility). Combined with the required-parameter list, an agent has everything needed to execute both calls 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 lacks: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent is only true with the stated agreement, and confirmation is only passed on the second call. It does not add syntax or validation rules for the free-form answers map, so it stays just above baseline.

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 (submit) and resource (enquiry) and immediately scopes it: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. The two-step framing and the 'SEO for accountants' domain make it distinct from enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which supply field metadata rather than submission.

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 when-to-call instructions per step: call once with answers+consent to validate, then call again only if the person agrees, adding the confirmation token. It also states the consent precondition and the human-approval gate that selects step 2, so an agent knows exactly which call to make and when not to proceed.

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