enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Florida Water Damage 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It comprehensively states what the tool returns (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation method) and clarifies the semantics of the underlying submit_enquiry (nothing bought/ordered/paid, free, no guaranteed quote). This gives the agent full transparency about the tool's behavior and outputs without relying on annotations.
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 efficiently structured, starting with the imperative 'Read first' to front-load the usage instruction, followed by a concise explanation of the tool's purpose and output. Every sentence adds value, and the total length is appropriate for the informational content. There is no redundancy or fluff.
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?
The tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description fully covers what the tool returns and its role in the workflow, making it complete for an informational tool. An agent can understand exactly what to expect without needing additional context.
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 no properties, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Per the rubric, the baseline for parameter semantics is 3 when the schema already covers everything. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none to elaborate on, so a 3 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it describes what submit_enquiry does, not the action itself. It specifies the resource (submit_enquiry on Florida Water Damage Cost) and the key distinctions (no purchase, no guaranteed quote, free). This differentiates it from the sibling tools, especially submit_enquiry, by explicitly framing itself as the 'read first' informational counterpart.
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 description opens with 'Read first,' which is an explicit instruction to use this tool before interacting with submit_enquiry. It also explains what the tool is not (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote), guiding the agent to use it when needing to understand the submission flow rather than performing it. It implies a clear when-to-use versus the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.