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 step 2 actually submits, that the person receives a double opt-in email and must click before any provider sees the enquiry, and what 'consent' legally means. These are non-obvious side effects and privacy-relevant gates 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 key disambiguation, then ordered by step, so the sequence is easy to follow. It is dense and slightly long, and the consent sentence is quoted verbatim a second time (it also appears in the schema), which is mild redundancy, but the content is otherwise load-bearing.

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, and the description compensates by describing what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after step 2 (confirmation email with a required click). For a nested-object, two-phase submission 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description exceeds it by explaining that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and by giving the confirmation token a workflow role (obtained from step 1, used only after the person approves the summary). It does not add type or format detail beyond that, so it is not a full 5.

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'), names the target domain, and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also reveals the two-step nature, which no sibling name conveys, so an agent can distinguish it from 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?

Explicitly prescribes Step 1 (call with answers + consent=true) and Step 2 (call again with answers, consent=true and the confirmation token) and gates Step 2 on 'only if the person agrees.' It also states what must be shown to the user (summary and consent line) before proceeding, leaving little to inference.

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