enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on California HVAC Replacement 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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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 that no purchase, order, or payment occurs, that quotes are not guaranteed, that the service is free, and that it returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and confirmation behavior. This gives the agent a clear behavioral and safety profile.
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 concise and front-loaded: it opens with the directive 'Read first,' then states the core behavior, then lists what the tool returns. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.
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?
Given zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does, what the user gets, what is not happening, and what kinds of information are returned. An agent can confidently select and invoke this tool without further clarification.
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 are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, zero parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.
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 a read-first explanation of what submit_enquiry does, with a specific resource ('California HVAC Replacement Cost') and concrete outcomes (human providers, direct quotes). It differentiates itself from submit_enquiry by emphasizing that nothing is bought or guaranteed, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_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?
The opening phrase 'Read first' gives clear directives to use this tool before engaging with submit_enquiry. It also warns what this flow is not (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote). However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use enquiry_fields as an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.