enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Freight Insurance 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 full disclosure burden and does so well: 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free' reveals the non-binding, no-cost nature of the enquiry. It also discloses what the tool returns (recipients, consent wording, confirmation process), going beyond the bare minimum.
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 'Read first' directive is effectively front-loaded, and the three sentences each add information: what the tool explains, the non-purchase semantics, and the return contents. The opening 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' is slightly redundant with the tool name, but the overall structure is tight.
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 meta/describe tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the tool's explanatory purpose, the outcome semantics (free, non-binding, human providers), and a summary of returned content. It could name the sibling enquiry_fields, but nothing critical is missing.
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 schema has zero properties, making parameter documentation unnecessary; the baseline of 4 applies. The description introduces no parameter confusion because there are none 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 a specific purpose: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' on Freight Insurance Cost, framing itself as the explainer/pre-read for the submission sibling. It clearly differentiates itself from submit_enquiry by emphasizing this is about understanding an enquiry, not executing one.
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?
'Read first' is an implied usage directive that tells the agent to consult this before acting on submit_enquiry. However, it never explicitly names when to use this vs. the alternatives, and enquiry_fields is entirely unaddressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.