enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Structured Settlement Compare: 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 disclose important traits: the enquiry is free, nothing is bought/ordered/paid, no quote is guaranteed, and consent/recipient details are included. It could go further on this tool's own read-only nature or auth needs, but it provides substantial behavioral context.
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 short sentences with a front-loaded directive ('Read first') and no wasted wording. The no-purchase/no-guarantee clarifications are compact and earn their place.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must explain what comes back, and it does list recipients, consent wording, and confirmation. It does not specify the return format, but for a simple informational tool 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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The empty schema is consistent with the description, which focuses on returned informational content rather than inputs.
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 states a specific informational purpose: it describes what submit_enquiry does and returns who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by framing itself as read-first explanatory content rather than the action 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?
The opening phrase 'Read first' clearly signals when to use this tool: before engaging with the enquiry process. It does not explicitly name alternatives beyond submit_enquiry or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the top score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.