enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Rechner HQ: 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 discloses the substantive outcomes of the enquiry flow (nothing bought/ordered/paid, no guaranteed quote, free) and enumerates returned content, but never explicitly states that this tool is a safe, side-effect-free read and requires no input — the safety profile is only implied by 'Read first.'
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 action cue ('Read first') front-loaded and no obvious filler. The bulk of the text explains submit_enquiry's behavior, but since that explanation is effectively the tool's payload, it is not wasted words.
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 annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description correctly takes on the burden of explaining what the caller gets back (recipients, consent wording, confirmation steps). It is complete enough for a 0-param informational tool, with only the explicit read-only/no-input framing left implicit.
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 no parameter semantics to document; the empty schema is self-explanatory. The baseline of 4 applies since the description cannot and need not add parameter meaning.
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 read/info tool whose output documents what submit_enquiry does (human providers quoting directly, no purchase, no guaranteed quote) and what gets returned (recipients, consent wording, confirmation flow). It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by framing itself as the 'read first' companion, though the phrasing spends more time describing the sibling than the verb+resource of this tool itself.
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 explicit sequencing instruction that tells the agent to consult this before invoking submit_enquiry, and the sibling is named directly. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use conditions (e.g. after the human flow is already underway) or other alternatives like enquiry_fields.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.