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 validation behavior, the exact artifacts returned in step 1 (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the requirement to show these to the person, the delayed effect (email link must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry), and the precise meaning of consent. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation-style tool.

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 critical constraint (not a purchase) and then sequences the steps efficiently. It is dense and slightly run-on, and the consent sentence duplicates the schema's consent description, but no sentence is 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, so the description assumes responsibility for return values and does: summary, consent line, and confirmation token in step 1, plus the downstream email-verification consequence in step 2. An agent has everything needed to drive 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. The description still adds value: it explains that answers are keyed by field key sourced from the sibling tool enquiry_fields, and that confirmation is the token returned by step 1 — information that frames the parameters within the two-call workflow rather than merely restating them.

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?

Names a specific verb (submit) and resource (enquiry to SEO services Glasgow), and immediately scopes it with explicit negatives: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. An agent can distinguish this from the helper siblings enquiry_describe and 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 an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 validates and returns summary/token, step 2 fires 'only if the person agrees'. It also states the gating condition for the subsequent email link, so the agent knows exactly when each call is appropriate and when it is not.

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