enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on GPA Grade Compare: 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 present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free,' and lists what the returned description covers: who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly say the tool itself has no side effects, but the read-only describing nature is strongly implied.
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 compact and front-loaded with 'Read first,' and each sentence adds distinct information about the enquiry behavior and return content. Minor filler like 'States plainly' and overlap with the title keep it from a 5.
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 zero-argument documentation tool, the description is nearly complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the key caveats about cost, purchase, and quote guarantee. The lack of an output schema or an explicit example of the returned description is a minor gap.
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 has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden to carry. The baseline of 4 applies; no additional parameter explanation is needed.
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 makes the tool's purpose explicit: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' rather than performing an enquiry, and it frames the output as describing a human enquiry flow where providers quote directly. It also distinguishes this from a purchase or guaranteed quote, so an agent can tell it apart from the sibling submit_enquiry.
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?
The only usage cue is 'Read first,' which implies consulting this before acting, but the description never states when to choose this tool over siblings like submit_enquiry or enquiry_fields. There is no explicit alternative condition or exclusion, so an agent must infer the intended sequencing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.