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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it explains that step 1 returns a summary, consent line, and token; step 2 submits and triggers an email with a link that must be clicked before providers see it. It also defines what 'consent' means. It does not mention rate limits, error behavior, or whether the token expires, but for a two-step form submission this is strong.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and the critical 'NOT a purchase' warning, then proceeds through the two steps efficiently. The consent sentence is a direct quote, which is necessary for legal clarity, though slightly verbose. Overall, every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the complexity (two-step flow, nested answers object, consent gate, email confirmation), the description covers the essential mechanics an agent needs to call the tool correctly across multiple turns. It lacks detail on token expiry or error handling, but with no output schema, the return values (summary, consent line, token) are well explained.

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 schema documents each parameter. The description adds crucial step-level semantics: which parameters belong to step 1 vs step 2, and that the confirmation token comes from step 1 after approval. This exceeds the baseline for a high-coverage schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Submits an enquiry to Web design Suffolk') and immediately distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also names the sibling tools implicitly by referencing 'enquiry_fields', making it clear how this tool relates to the others.

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?

It provides an explicit two-step workflow: step 1 validates and returns a summary and token; step 2 submits only after the person agrees. This is the rarest form of usage guidance—it tells the agent exactly when and how to invoke the tool across turns, and when not to (not a purchase).

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