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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does this well: it discloses the validation-and-token round trip, the email-confirmation gate before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact meaning of consent. It stops short of stating token lifetime, whether answers must be resubmitted identically, or error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 key disqualifier ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') is front-loaded, and the two steps are laid out in order with no filler. It is dense and somewhat long, but every clause (token, consent wording, email gate) carries information an agent needs to invoke correctly.

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 cover both safety and returns, and it does: it describes what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what the person receives after step 2 (a verification email link). Nothing essential for a correct two-phase invocation 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 value by tying 'answers' to the sibling tool enquiry_fields ('keyed by field key from enquiry_fields') and by clarifying that consent=true is required in both steps and the confirmation token only in step 2. That step-aware usage goes beyond the per-parameter schema text.

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 Sussex') and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', which prevents the most likely misclassification. An agent can distinguish it from the read-only siblings enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields at a glance.

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 with answers + consent=true to validate, then step 2 only after the person approves the summary, re-sending answers, consent=true and the token. It also states the precondition for consent (the person has read and agreed to the named consent line), so the when-and-how is fully specified.

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