enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on FSMA Crypto Promotions 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that this tool returns an explanation of submit_enquiry, what the enquiry involves, what is not guaranteed, and what information is returned. This is more transparent than just relying on the tool name.
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 description is compact and front-loaded with the most important instruction, 'Read first.' Every sentence adds meaningful information: what the tool does, what it does not do, and what it returns. There is no filler.
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 zero-parameter descriptive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool explains, the relationship to submit_enquiry, the expected outcome, and what user-facing caveats to communicate. The agent can use this tool correctly with no further clarification needed.
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 schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description adds useful context about what the returned explanation covers, which aligns with the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
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 clearly identifies the tool as one that 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does,' giving a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates this tool from submit_enquiry and other siblings by explicitly positioning it as a read-first explanation 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 description gives a direct usage signal with 'Read first,' indicating this should be used before submit_enquiry. It also sets expectations about what an enquiry is and is not, which helps the agent decide when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with other siblings like checker_start or checker_answer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.