enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Insurance by Profession: 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 full behavioral burden. It discloses what content is returned (recipients, consent wording, confirmation) and that nothing is bought or guaranteed, but it never explicitly states this is a side-effect-free read operation for the tool itself — the 'nothing is paid' clause describes the enquiry, not this tool.
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?
Short and front-loaded with the actionable 'Read first.' cue, but the 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' framing largely duplicates the title, adding some redundancy.
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 describe tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned content (recipients, consent wording, confirmation) well enough for an agent to know what to expect. The remaining gap is only that it never explicitly frames the tool's own read-only nature.
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 schema defines zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies no input 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 states this is a read/describe tool that explains what submit_enquiry does and returns the recipients, consent wording, and confirmation flow. It is clear about its subject matter, though it describes the tool somewhat indirectly (it explains another tool rather than saying plainly 'this returns a description of the enquiry process').
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 implied sequencing cue pointing the agent to consult this before submit_enquiry. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus siblings like enquiry_fields, and no exclusions, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.