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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a token, that step 2 actually submits, that the enquirer must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry, and defines exactly what consent attests to. Side effects, ordering, and a precondition 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-loaded with purpose and disclaimers, then proceeds in call order (Step 1, Step 2), so the sequence is easy to follow. It is a dense single block with some restatement of the consent wording, which costs a little tightness but every sentence is 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, so the description must describe returns, and it does: a summary, the consent line, and a confirmation token, plus the downstream email-verification state. Combined with full schema coverage for a three-parameter tool, 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 description coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'answers' are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, and 'confirmation' is the token produced by step 1 rather than an arbitrary string. It does not add type/format nuance for the nested answer values.

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 Web design Cheltenham') and immediately delimits what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It is clearly separable from the sibling read/describe tools (enquiry_fields, enquiry_describe) without opening a 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 invocation conditions for each of the two calls, including the gating condition 'only if the person agrees', and points to enquiry_fields as the source of field keys. It stops short of naming the sibling tools as alternatives for the pre-submission steps, so routing between siblings is only implied.

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