enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Issafu: 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 behavioral burden. It adds useful domain context (nothing is bought/paid, no quote guaranteed, it is free) but that describes the subject matter rather than this tool's own execution behavior — it never states that the tool is a safe, side-effect-free read. Reasonable but incomplete without annotations.
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?
Two compact sentences with the imperative 'Read first.' front-loaded, followed by the substance and return content. No filler, though the phrasing describing the tool's output indirectly ('States plainly what submit_enquiry does') costs a little clarity.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey the return content, and it does: recipients of the details, consent wording, and the confirmation step. Combined with zero parameters and no annotations, this is close to sufficient, though it could state the form of the returned documentation more precisely.
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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter semantics are 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 makes clear this is a documentation/describe tool that returns an explanation of the enquiry flow ('States plainly what submit_enquiry does... Also returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms'). The verb is implicit rather than explicit, but the resource and returned content are identifiable and it is distinguishable from data tools like enquiry_fields or dataset_* siblings.
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 ordering cue for when to consult this tool before acting. However, it names no alternative (e.g. enquiry_fields, submit_enquiry) and gives no when-not condition, so routing guidance is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.