enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Employee Cost Calculator NZ: 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 provided, the description fully carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the service is free, and that the output includes recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This is unusually transparent for a tool description.
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 short, front-loaded with the imperative 'Read first,' and every sentence adds meaningful information about purpose, constraints, cost, and return content. There is no redundant or filler language.
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, no-output-schema describe tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what submit_enquiry does, what is not true about it, and what the description output will contain. Nothing important is missing for correct invocation and interpretation.
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 because there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameters. The description instead focuses on output behavior, which is appropriate for a no-input describe 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 clearly identifies this tool as the 'read first' explanation of what submit_enquiry does, naming the specific resource and context (Employee Cost Calculator NZ). It also distinguishes the tool from a purchase or guaranteed quote, which helps an agent understand the tool's role among siblings.
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 phrase 'Read first' explicitly signals when to use this tool before acting, and the description clarifies what the counterpart tool (submit_enquiry) accomplishes. However, it does not explicitly mention any sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.