enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on RMMCompare: 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 does well: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered or paid, no quote is guaranteed, and the process is free, plus what gets returned (recipients, consent wording, confirmation). It stops short of pacing, auth, or error behavior, but for a read-only informational tool this is solid disclosure.
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 action-oriented instruction 'Read first' is front-loaded, and the three sentences are purpose-, safety-, and return-focused. The second sentence is slightly long but each clause contributes distinct information.
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?
Given no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies enough context: what it explains, its safety profile, and what content it yields. An agent can call it correctly without further information.
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 parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter meaning to add or omit.
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 establishes this as the explanatory companion to submit_enquiry, stating it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does.' A specific function is conveyed (describe the enquiry flow) and it is distinguishable from the submit_enquiry sibling, though the framing describes the sibling's behavior more than its own verb+resource.
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' clearly instructs the agent to call this before the enquiry flow, and the naming of submit_enquiry gives a tacit alternative. However, no explicit when-not conditions or a direct comparison of when to use this versus enquiry_fields is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.