enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Historia Pojazdu VIN: 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 behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and what the response contains (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method). It does not address auth, rate limits, or whether the described text is static, so it is not exhaustive.
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 operative instruction ('Read first') is front-loaded and the rest packs several distinct facts into two sentences without redundancy. It is slightly dense/run-on in the second sentence, but every clause carries information.
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-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, the key caveats, and roughly what is returned (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method). An agent has enough to decide to call it, though the exact return shape is only sketched.
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 no per-parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies, and the description appropriately spends its words on return content instead of inventing parameter detail.
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 (describes what submit_enquiry does) and its scope, explicitly contrasting with the sibling submit_enquiry: 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote.' An agent can tell from the first line that this is the informational/read companion to submit_enquiry rather than the submission itself.
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' clearly signals this should be consulted before submit_enquiry, and the title/description reinforce what the alternative (submitting) does and does not do. It stops short of an explicit 'do not call this to submit an enquiry' instruction or named alternatives, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.