enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Made in Mexico Suppliers: 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose what the tool returns and clarifies that an enquiry is free and not a guaranteed purchase. However, it never explicitly states that calling this describe tool itself has no side effects, which matters when no read-only hint is present.
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?
Three short sentences with the most important instruction ('Read first.') at the very beginning. Every sentence adds value: it names the sibling, explains the boundary, and summarizes the return content without redundancy.
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 covers purpose, usage order, key concepts, and what is returned. It does not describe return formatting, but that is not essential for a conceptual explainer tool.
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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly focuses on what the tool communicates rather than arguments, matching the baseline for a parameterless tool.
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?
States plainly what the tool does: it explains what submit_enquiry does on Made in Mexico Suppliers, and it names the specific domain and sibling. It also distinguishes itself with 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote,' so an agent can tell this description tool apart from the actual submission action.
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 leads with 'Read first,' clearly telling the agent to use this before interacting with submit_enquiry. It explains what the agent will learn (receivers, consent wording, confirmation), but it does not explicitly contrast this with other siblings like compare_options or enquiry_fields.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.