enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Bank Code Lookup: it starts an enquiry with human providers who quote directly. Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free. Also returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it states nothing is bought, ordered or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that it is free, which establishes the non-committal, side-effect-free nature of the enquiry. It also previews the returned content (recipients, consent wording, confirmation flow). It stops short of stating whether calling it has any side effects itself or its exact response shape.
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 'Read first.' and then kept to a short set of clauses. The phrasing 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid' is slightly redundant with 'not a purchase' in the title, but there is little waste overall.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description partially compensates by naming what is returned (who receives details, consent wording, how the person confirms). Combined with the zero-param schema and the clear non-committal framing, this is adequate, though it could say more about the exact response structure.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and no parameter ambiguity exists. Baseline for a no-param tool is 4; the description adds nothing needed here and nothing misleading.
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?
It identifies itself as a read-first describe tool and specifies the resource it documents (an enquiry with human providers on Bank Code Lookup), which distinguishes it from the sibling submit_enquiry that actually creates the enquiry. The framing is slightly indirect ('states plainly what submit_enquiry does') rather than describing itself directly, but an agent can still tell what this tool returns.
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?
'Read first' implies this should be consulted before submit_enquiry, which is useful ordering guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when-not to use it, and it never names submit_enquiry as an alternative in a routing sense ('use X instead'), so usage is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.