enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on FBA Forwarders: 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 supplied, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It explicitly discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid for, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the enquiry is free. It also describes what the tool returns: recipient details, consent wording, and how the person confirms.
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 brief and front-loaded with the most important usage signal, 'Read first.' Two sentences cover the tool's purpose, its relationship to submit_enquiry, key caveats, and the nature of its return content without any filler.
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 explains what the tool does, what it returns, and what the key expectations are. An agent has enough information to decide whether to call this tool and what to do with the information it provides.
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 the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no parameter documentation is needed here because there are no inputs to document.
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 plainly that this tool explains what submit_enquiry does on FBA Forwarders, distinguishing it from actually submitting or purchasing. The title reinforces the key distinction: an enquiry with a human is not a purchase or guaranteed quote. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling submit_enquiry.
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 contextual directive to consult this tool before proceeding with the enquiry flow. It does not enumerate alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but for an informational prerequisite tool, this guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.