enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Expatriation Tax 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, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides useful transparency about what submit_enquiry does (not a purchase, no guaranteed quote, free) and what the response contains (recipient details, consent wording, confirmation method), but it does not explicitly state that this tool itself is read-only or has no side effects, though the 'describe' verb strongly implies it.
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 two sentences and front-loads the most important guidance ('Read first') while covering purpose, scope, and output contents. It is efficient, though the phrase 'States plainly' is slightly redundant and the title is longer than necessary.
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 no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the tool returns and clarifying the enquiry context (no purchase, no guaranteed quote, free, confirmation process). It could be more explicit about when not to use it or what it does not cover, but for a descriptive companion tool it is adequately complete.
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 empty schema properties, so the schema provides no parameter information. The description compensates by explaining what the returned information will cover, which is sufficient for a parameterless informational tool; per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is a solid 4.
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 the tool's function: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' and returns key information about the enquiry process. It differentiates itself from siblings like calculate and enquiry_fields by explicitly being the descriptive companion to submit_enquiry, with no calculation or field-listing focus.
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 a clear instruction to consult this tool before proceeding, implying it should be used before submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended ordering and informational role are evident from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.