enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Colorado Roof 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. It discloses what the tool returns: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms. It also clarifies the non-binding, free nature of the enquiry. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a zero-parameter describe tool this is not a significant omission.
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 front-loaded with the imperative 'Read first' and then efficiently summarizes the tool's purpose and output. The title is a bit redundant with the description, but every sentence in the description adds value by specifying what is and is not delivered. It is slightly verbose but not bloated.
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 informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states when to use it, what it explains, and what it returns. An agent can decide to invoke it and know what to expect without missing critical information.
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 accepts zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings and instead uses its space to clarify the tool's purpose and output, which is appropriate.
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 names the specific verb 'States' and the resource, submit_enquiry on Colorado Roof Replacement Cost, and clearly distinguishes this tool from the actual submission tool by explaining it is a plain-language explainer of what submit_enquiry does. It also differentiates the outcome from a purchase or guaranteed quote, so an agent knows exactly what this describe tool provides.
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 directive 'Read first' gives explicit sequencing guidance to use this tool before submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly mention when to use enquiry_fields or contrast alternatives, but the context of siblings and the phrase 'Read first' make the usage scenario clear; a small gap remains since no explicit exclusion or alternative is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.