enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Strength Standards Calc: 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 explicitly negates purchase, order, payment, and guaranteed quotes, and flags that it is free. It also previews the return contents (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method), though it never explicitly says the tool has no side effects of its own.
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?
Front-loaded with the imperative 'Read first,' then two tight sentences. Dense but every clause earns its place; nothing redundant.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must signal what comes back, and it does list the return contents. For a zero-parameter explanatory tool this is nearly complete, missing only explicit side-effect/read-only language.
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. There is nothing for the description to add beyond confirming it is a pure documentation read.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('States plainly what submit_enquiry does') and the topic (the ENQUIRY flow with human providers). It distinguishes itself well from enquiry_fields and submit_enquiry by being the explanatory/read-first companion, though it spends more words describing the sibling than 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' implies ordering relative to submit_enquiry, which is useful guidance. However it does not state when to use this vs enquiry_fields, the other sibling in the same enquiry family, so the routing is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.