enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Grain Storage Costs enquiry: key, label, type, whether required, help text and the allowed options where there are any. Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. With form, the questions of that guide's own form.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form | No | a guide's own form, for a different reader (grain-drying-costs); omit for the site's main form |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / formAdded value: +{
+ "description": "a guide's own form, for a different reader (grain-drying-costs); omit for the site's main form",
+ "enum": [
+ "grain-drying-costs"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the exact shape of the response (key, label, type, required flag, help text, options). It does not mention error behavior or whether results are cached/static, which keeps it from a 5, but this is clearly a safe read of a form definition.
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 what is returned and followed by how to use it. Minor waste from the fragment 'With form, the questions of that guide's own form', which restates the schema description, but overall tight.
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 explain the return value — and it does, itemizing every attribute of each field. For a simple, single-optional-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only auth or error conditions are unstated.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter is fully described there ('a guide's own form, for a different reader'). The description echoes this ('With form, the questions of that guide's own form') without adding format, default, or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 the resource precisely (every field of the Grain Storage Costs enquiry) and enumerates exactly what each field carries: key, label, type, required flag, help text, options. An agent can distinguish it from enquiry_describe and submit_enquiry without opening the schema, though the verb is implicit (a noun phrase rather than 'retrieve the fields').
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?
Explicitly ties the tool into the workflow: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' tells the agent this is the prerequisite step for submission. It also explains when the optional form parameter applies (a guide's own form). No explicit exclusion or when-not guidance, so not a 5.
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.