enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Immigration Adviser Finder: 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 provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavioral facts: nothing is bought/ordered/paid, no quote is guaranteed, and it is free. It also states what it returns (who receives the details, consent wording, confirmation mechanism). It stops short of noting read-only nature explicitly or any rate/format details.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the 'Read first' directive followed by the concrete scope. Each sentence earns its place by covering purpose, disclaimers, and return contents, though the phrasing is slightly loose in places.
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, no annotations, and no parameters, so the description must stand alone — and it adequately explains what the tool returns (recipients, consent wording, confirmation flow) for an informational describe tool. Minor gaps remain around return format, but nothing essential is missing.
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, which is the baseline for a 4 per the rubric. The description correctly does not invent parameter semantics, and the empty schema is consistent with an informational describe tool.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: it describes/explains what submit_enquiry does on Immigration Adviser Finder. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by clarifying that this tool 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and returns metadata like consent wording and recipient details, rather than performing the 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?
'Read first' is an explicit directive placing this tool ahead of submit_enquiry in the workflow. It implies the when-to-use condition (before submitting an enquiry) and the contrast with the sibling, but does not spell out alternatives or exclusions beyond that ordering hint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.