enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Notice Period Ireland: 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 burden. It discloses that the tool returns details about who receives the enquiry, consent wording, and confirmation method. It also clarifies that using the workflow involves no purchase, no guaranteed quote, and no cost. It doesn't explicitly state that calling this describe tool itself has zero side effects, but the content makes that sufficiently clear.
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 sentences with no wasted words. 'Read first' is a compelling lead, followed by precise details about the action and return content. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is front-loaded.
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 describe tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what submit_enquiry does, what the user receives, and the key caveats (free, no commitment, no guaranteed quote). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide to call it and understand its output.
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 the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about what the tool does and returns, compensating for the empty schema. There are no parameters to document, and the description handles the tool's purpose well.
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 verb ('States plainly') and resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Notice Period Ireland'), and the title clarifies the domain ('an ENQUIRY with a human, not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like submit_enquiry (which performs the action) and calculation tools.
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 'Read first' explicitly signals when to use this tool: before taking action, to understand submit_enquiry. It names the target tool and explains what the user gets. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like enquiry_fields or calculator_describe, but the context is clear enough for an agent to use it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.