enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Marine 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool returns content, implying a read-only informational operation, but it never explicitly states that calling enquiry_describe itself has no side effects or that it does not submit an enquiry. The "nothing is bought" reassurance refers to submit_enquiry, not to this tool directly.
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 short, front-loaded with "Read first," and every sentence contributes useful detail: what the tool states, what it returns, and key reassurances about cost and commitment. There is no redundancy or 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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the subject (submit_enquiry), gives usage timing, and itemizes the returned information. No additional context is needed for an agent to call this tool correctly.
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, which matches the baseline of 4. There is no parameter information for the description to add, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's return content instead of any inputs.
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 says the tool states plainly what submit_enquiry does and returns specific content (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation method). It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by explaining nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, though it does not explicitly differentiate against enquiry_fields.
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 a clear timing directive, positioning this tool as the orientation step before using submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention enquiry_fields, but the context strongly implies when this descriptive tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.