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 thoroughly: validation behavior, returned summary/consent line/token, the mandatory second call, the recipient email with a click-through link, and the exact consent wording. This is the kind of multi-step, side-effecting behavior an agent cannot 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 distinction (not a purchase) and cleanly ordered as Step 1 / Step 2. The embedded verbatim consent sentence is necessary for the agent to reproduce, though the passage is dense for a single description.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains what step 1 returns and what step 2 triggers, and covers the consent constraint and email verification gate. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke both calls 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: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after agreement, and confirmation is the token carried forward from step 1. It adds the inter-call data flow the schema alone does not express.

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 precise verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to SEO Devon') and immediately disambiguates it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also references the sibling tool by name ('keyed by field key from enquiry_fields'), so an agent can distinguish it from enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-call guidance for both passes: step 1 with answers+consent, step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. It also states the gating condition (the person must click the emailed link before any provider sees it), leaving nothing to inference.

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