enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Medicare Plan Comparison: 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 burden and discloses important behavioral context: nothing is bought, no quote is guaranteed, and it returns recipient/consent/confirmation details. It implies a read-only informational role but does not explicitly state this tool has no side effects, keeping it from a 5.
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 short, front-loads the directive "Read first," and each sentence adds relevant information without waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple informational tool.
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-output-schema describe tool, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and the context around submit_enquiry. It could be slightly more explicit that the tool itself does not submit anything, so a 5 is not warranted.
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 zero input parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add 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 clearly states that the tool explains what submit_enquiry does and returns consent-related details. It names the related tool (submit_enquiry) but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling enquiry_fields, so it falls short of a 5.
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 clear context that this tool should be consulted before submit_enquiry. However, it does not mention alternatives such as enquiry_fields or any exclusions, so it lacks the full guidance of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.