enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on PropFirmPicker: 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 burden, and it discharges it well: nothing is bought, ordered or paid, no quote is guaranteed, it is free, and it discloses the return content (recipients, consent wording, confirmation mechanism). It does not cover auth/permission needs or any rate limits, keeping it short of 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?
Three tight sentences with the actionable directive ('Read first') front-loaded and no filler. Slightly awkward that the middle sentence is about a sibling tool rather than this one, which costs a point.
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 and no annotations, the description must stand in for both, and it does describe the substantive return fields (recipients, consent wording, confirmation). No parameter or safety gaps exist for a zero-arg read tool, so this is close to complete.
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. The description correctly implies a no-input lookup rather than a parameterized query.
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 name and description together convey that this tool returns explanatory content about the enquiry flow, and the final sentence ('Also returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms') does state what the tool itself emits. However, the bulk of the text describes submit_enquiry's behavior rather than this tool's, so an agent must infer that enquiry_describe is the documentation/read-first companion rather than a distinct action.
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' implies a sequencing rule relative to the enquiry flow, which is genuine guidance. But no alternatives are named, and it never states explicitly whether this must precede submit_enquiry or is optional background reading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.