enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Med Spa Cost Checker: 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 full burden, and it does disclose substantive domain behavior: nothing is bought/ordered/paid, no quote is guaranteed, it is free, and it returns consent wording and confirmation flow. However, it never states the tool's own operational profile (read-only, side-effect-free, safe to call repeatedly) or any auth requirements, leaving those to inference.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the actionable 'Read first' directive, and each sentence adds a distinct fact (what the enquiry is, what it is not, what it returns). The colon-list construction is slightly dense but not wasteful.
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 informational tool, the description covers purpose, sequencing, non-committal guarantees, and return content, which is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is the tool's own safety/operational nature, which no annotation supplies.
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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for.
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 conveys that this is a pre-read informational tool that explains the enquiry process and returns consent/recipient/confirmation details, and it names the sibling submit_enquiry it relates to. It is slightly muddied because the opening clause ('States plainly what submit_enquiry does') narrates the sibling's behavior rather than directly stating the tool's own action, so the subject of the sentence must be inferred.
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 sequencing instruction that places this tool before submit_enquiry, which is clear context for an agent. It does not name an alternative tool or state exclusions, so it stops short of the 5-level when/when-not/alternatives treatment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.