enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Business Worth Calculator: 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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, paid for, or guaranteed, that it is free, and it enumerates what the tool returns: recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation behavior. This is exceptional behavioral disclosure for an explanatory tool.
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: the imperative 'Read first' sets priority immediately, followed by a clear statement of purpose and consequences. Every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy.
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-parameter, no-output-schema documentation tool, this description is unusually complete. It explains the purpose, the user-facing outcome, the non-transactional nature, and the return content. Nothing necessary for an agent to decide whether and when to call it is missing.
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 an empty input schema, so the baseline is 4 because there is no parameter ambiguity. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not waste space attempting to.
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 plainly states what the tool does: it explains what submit_enquiry does on Business Worth Calculator. It also clarifies the outcome in user terms — an enquiry with human providers, not a purchase, order, or guaranteed quote — which strongly distinguishes it from the sibling tools. The title reinforces the non-transactional purpose.
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 'Read first' gives explicit positional guidance to use this tool before submit_enquiry, and the description makes clear it is the explanatory companion to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use it versus calculate or enquiry_fields, but the context and zero-parameter nature make the intended use apparent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.