enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Buffrota: 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that nothing is bought/ordered/paid, no quote is guaranteed, and it is free. It also previews the returned content (recipients, consent text, confirmation flow). It doesn't state whether the call has side effects or is purely read-only, but the content is unusually transparent about real-world implications.
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 compact sentences with the key directive ('Read first') front-loaded. Each sentence adds information (purpose, disclaimers, return content) with little waste, though the middle sentence's enumeration is slightly list-like.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must convey return content, and it does name the three things returned (recipients, consent wording, confirmation). Combined with the void parameter schema, this is complete enough for an agent to understand and call the tool.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The schema is empty with 100% coverage, and no parameter meaning is needed or missing.
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 function: it returns explanatory/consent content about what an enquiry is, and it names the sibling it relates to (submit_enquiry). The framing is slightly indirect ('States plainly what submit_enquiry does') rather than stating what this tool itself returns first, but the second sentence clarifies the actual output (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method).
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.' gives an explicit when-to-use directive, positioning this as a pre-submit orientation tool relative to submit_enquiry. It doesn't compare against the other sibling enquiry_fields, so it stops short of full alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.