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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, that submission triggers an email requiring a click before any provider sees the enquiry, and defines exactly what consent means. Side effects, sequencing, and the consent semantics are all surfaced.

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 identity and the 'not a purchase' caveat, then lays out Step 1 and Step 2 in order. It is dense but every clause is functional — the workflow, the consent text, and the token handoff each earn their place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what each call returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and the downstream email-verification step. For a two-phase, consent-gated, nested-object tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: answers are keyed by field key drawn from enquiry_fields, and confirmation is the token from step 1 used only after the person approves the summary. It clarifies the two-call contract between consent and confirmation.

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 SEO Cornwall') and immediately disambiguates intent with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. This lets an agent distinguish it from the read-oriented siblings (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 explicit sequencing: Step 1 call with answers + consent=true to validate and get a token; Step 2 only if the person agrees, call again with the same answers plus the token. The when-to-call conditions and the gating human-consent requirement are stated, not inferred.

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