enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Nearshore Finder: 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 and it does well: it states nothing is bought/ordered/paid, no quote is guaranteed, it is free, and it returns the recipients, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly declare itself side-effect-free, but 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' implies a descriptive read-only role.
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 three short sentences, front-loaded with 'Read first', and each sentence adds relevant information about scope, exclusions, or return content. It is concise, though it slightly repeats the title's 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' phrasing.
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 enough: it states the topic, the constraints, and the key returned details. It could be more explicit about exact return formatting, but the absence of an output schema makes the description's level acceptable.
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 is empty (100% coverage by default), so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context about the informational content returned, though there are no parameters 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 uses a specific verb ('States plainly') and identifies the resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Nearshore Finder'), making clear this is an informational description rather than the submit action itself. It is distinguishable from siblings like submit_enquiry, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the other descriptive sibling 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' explicitly tells an agent to consult this before acting, and the description clarifies the scope (an enquiry, not a purchase or guaranteed quote). It does not explicitly name when to choose this over other tools, but the 'Read first' instruction provides practical usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.