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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses legacy status, auth requirements, and the 24-hour team response time. It doesn't explicitly state that this creates an enquiry record, but the verb 'submit' and the follow-up context imply it. Missing details like side effects are partially covered by the strong usage guidance.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the preferred alternative and clear usage condition. No filler; each sentence provides unique operational value: preference, condition, and required inputs.

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?

For a tool with a nested product_config and no output schema, the description covers the main decision points: when to use, what to pass, auth, and expected response time. It doesn't describe return values, but the 'team responds within 24 hours' provides some outcome context. Moderate complexity justifies a 4.

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% with descriptions for all properties. The description adds valuable cross-tool context by stating that product_config should be a configure_product output and lists the required customer fields. This relationship is not in the 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 pair ('submit an enquiry') and clearly distinguishes it from the checkout flow by explaining that it's for sales team follow-up by email. It also positions the tool as legacy, giving clear scope.

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?

Explicitly says to prefer the open UCP flow (create_cart → create_checkout → complete_checkout) for credentialless checkout, and to use submit_enquiry only when a sales team follow-up is desired. Also notes the Bearer token requirement, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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