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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that step 1 is non-committal validation returning a summary/consent line/token, that submission triggers an email requiring a click before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact consent text the user must have agreed to. These are the behavioral traits an agent could not recover from the schema alone.

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 most important scoping disclaimer ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and organized as Step 1 / Step 2. It is a single dense block and restates the consent sentence already present in the schema, a minor redundancy that keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain both the protocol and the return values, and it does: step 1 returns a summary, consent line and confirmation token; step 2 results in an email verification link before provider visibility. A caller has everything needed to run the flow 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 goes beyond by explaining the cross-parameter workflow — 'answers' must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, 'consent' must be true at both steps, and 'confirmation' is the token returned by step 1 after user approval. It doesn't add value-level examples or types, so it lands just above baseline.

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+resource ('Submits an enquiry to Web design Poole') and immediately bounds it with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools (enquiry_fields supplies the field keys, enquiry_describe presumably describes the service), so an agent can select it without opening another 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 with the condition that gates each step: call Step 1 with answers + consent=true, show the user the summary and consent line, then call Step 2 only if the person agrees and only with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The when/when-not condition ('only if the person agrees') is stated, not inferred.

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