enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Oklahoma Foundation Repair 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It makes the tool's informational, read-only nature clear by saying it 'states' and 'returns' content, and it details what that content is. It does not add an explicit 'no side effects' line, but that is strongly implied for a descriptive tool.
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, front-loads the most important instruction ('Read first'), and every remaining sentence adds substance: what it explains, what it does not involve, and what it returns. There is no 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 0-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the relationship to submit_enquiry, the content returned, and the reassurance about no purchase, payment, or guaranteed quote. Nothing essential is missing for correct selection and invocation.
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 properties and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately spends no space on parameter semantics, matching the baseline for a 0-parameter 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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and enumerates the returned content. It clearly distinguishes this meta-explanatory tool from actually submitting an enquiry, and its relationship to submit_enquiry is explicit.
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?
It opens with 'Read first,' which gives an explicit usage directive and positions the tool as the precursor to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention the enquiry_fields sibling, but the intended workflow placement is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.