enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Redundancy Calculator 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: it states the tool is non-transactional ('Nothing is bought, ordered or paid'), free, guarantees no quote, and documents exactly what the tool returns. This is exemplary transparency for a meta-informational 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 structure is well front-loaded with 'Read first,' but the description repeats content already present in the title: 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' mirrors 'Nothing is bought... no quote is guaranteed.' The description earns its place overall, but could be tightened by one clause.
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 informational tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it conveys the tool's nature, what underlying operation it documents, and the contents of its return value. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter meaning to add; the description correctly focuses on what the tool itself returns rather than 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 states a specific purpose: it is an informational tool that explains what submit_enquiry does on Redundancy Calculator Ireland, and lists what it returns (recipient details, consent wording, confirmation mechanism). This clearly distinguishes it from its siblings — it is the 'describe' companion to submit_enquiry, mirroring the calculator_describe pattern.
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' gives clear context that this tool should be consulted before engaging with the enquiry workflow. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the leading instruction is a strong usage signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.