enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on California Solar Cost 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains exactly what the tool does (returns a plain-language explanation of submit_enquiry), what it does not do (nothing is bought, ordered, paid, or guaranteed), and what information is returned (who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method). This is thorough for a read-only informational 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the most important instruction ('Read first'), and every sentence earns its place: it states the tool's purpose, clarifies what it is not, and summarizes the return value. There is no fluff or redundant repetition.
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 the simple nature of the tool (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool does, why an agent should read it first, what the returned information covers, and the key caveats about submit_enquiry. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide when and how to invoke this 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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the tool's informational output rather than parameter syntax, and no additional parameter details are needed. It fully compensates for the absence of parameter information by explaining the tool's behavior.
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 states a specific verb ('States plainly') and resource ('what submit_enquiry does on California Solar Cost Calculator'), and clearly differentiates the tool from its sibling submit_enquiry by emphasizing it is informational rather than an action. It also clarifies that no purchase, order, payment, or guaranteed quote is involved, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's role.
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' explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: before engaging with submit_enquiry. It provides clear context that this is a prerequisite read, though it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives beyond the implied distinction from submit_enquiry. This is strong guidance for a describe-style tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.