enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Asbestos Survey Cost: 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 behavioral burden and does so well: no purchase/order/payment, no guaranteed quote, free, plus it discloses return contents (recipients, consent wording, confirmation). It omits any rate-limit or auth context, but for a read-only info tool this is solid.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the operative "Read first" directive, and every clause earns its place. The inclusion of the site name "Asbestos Survey Cost" is mildly extraneous but not costly.
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?
For a no-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema description-only tool, the description explains the return content itself (recipients, consent wording, confirmation), compensating for the missing output schema. It is essentially complete for an informational tool.
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 nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter gaps exist to compensate for.
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?
It states a specific verb+resource (describe/enquiry) and explicitly frames itself as documentation of what submit_enquiry does, distinguishing it from the sibling that actually submits. The framing is slightly meta/circular (a describe tool announcing that it describes), which keeps it from being a 5.
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" gives clear ordering guidance relative to submit_enquiry, and the negative framing (not a purchase, not a quote) clarifies scope. It does not name explicit when-not conditions or other alternatives, but the sequencing intent is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.