enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Wedding Cost Checker: 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, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the subject matter of what comes back (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation method), which is the most important behavioral context for a zero-parameter describe tool, but it never explicitly states that enquiry_describe itself is a safe, side-effect-free read with no mutation of any enquiry state. Most of the text describes submit_enquiry's behavior rather than this tool's own semantics.
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, front-loaded with the 'Read first' directive. The 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' negatives largely duplicate the title rather than adding new information, which is minor redundancy but not bloat.
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 no parameters, the description is the only source of information, and it does cover what the tool returns (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method) as well as what it does not do. The main residual gap is the absence of any explicit statement about the tool's own side-effect-free nature, though that is implied by 'describe'.
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 input schema has zero properties and 100% coverage by definition, so there are no parameters to document. The baseline of 4 applies: nothing in the description is needed to compensate for undocumented 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 that this tool explains what submit_enquiry does on the Wedding Cost Checker, i.e., it is a documentation/describe tool for the enquiry flow, and 'Read first' signals its role. It distinguishes the subject from a purchase or guaranteed quote, and the title reinforces this boundary. It never states outright 'this tool returns descriptive info about the enquiry process' in those words, leaving a small inference step, but the intent is discoverable.
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 ordering instruction relative to submit_enquiry, giving the agent a clear when-to-use cue. It doesn't name enquiry_fields as an alternative or spell out when-not to call it, but the sequencing guidance is concrete and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.