enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Employee Cost Australia: 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 burden. It discloses what the tool returns: the details, consent wording, and confirmation method, and states there is no purchase or guaranteed quote. This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's output and non-side-effect nature, though it doesn't explicitly state it's read-only (but that's implied).
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 directive 'Read first', and each sentence adds information: what it does, what it doesn't do, and what it returns. It is efficient without being overly terse, though the title already conveys some of the same information.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: the purpose, the behavior, and the return content. It is complete for a descriptive tool that is meant to be read before acting.
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, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't add anything about them, which is appropriate. The schema already shows no properties, so no gap exists.
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 states that the tool 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does', identifying the specific resource (submit_enquiry) and the action (describing/explaining). It distinguishes itself from siblings like calculator_describe by referencing a distinct target tool, so an agent knows exactly what this tool is for.
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' provides a clear directive to use this tool before submit_enquiry, establishing a usage sequence. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but for a descriptive tool, the implied context is sufficient. It could have named calculator_describe as a parallel for other workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.