enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Notice Period Australia: 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It makes clear this is an informational tool that 'states' and 'returns' details, and it clarifies what the underlying enquiry is not: not a purchase, not an order, not paid, not a guaranteed quote, and free. It could more explicitly say 'this tool itself is read-only,' but the informational nature is unambiguous.
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 tight sentences with the most important guidance front-loaded in 'Read first.' Every sentence adds distinct value: what the tool does, what it does not do, and what it returns.
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 no-parameter, no-output-schema informational tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent the purpose, the guarantees and exclusions, and the exact content of the returned information, including recipients, consent wording, and confirmation behavior.
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, so there is no parameter documentation burden. Schema coverage is 100% because the schema is empty, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than on parameters.
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 names a specific verb ('States plainly'), a specific resource ('submit_enquiry'), and a scope ('on Notice Period Australia'). It clearly distinguishes this informational describe tool from the action tool submit_enquiry by saying it explains what that tool does rather than performing the enquiry.
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 opening directive 'Read first' tells the agent to use this tool before taking action, and naming submit_enquiry makes the intended context obvious. It does not enumerate all sibling alternatives such as enquiry_fields, but the primary use-before-submit guidance is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.