enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Notice Period 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, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the enquiry is free, and that the tool returns recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation behavior. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs.
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 tight and front-loaded with the 'Read first' instruction, followed by a concise explanation of the tool's subject and return values. Every sentence contributes distinct, useful information with no redundancy.
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 parameterless informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the subject, the key caveats, and the three return elements. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call and interpret the tool correctly.
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 is empty, so the zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameters for the description to elaborate on, and it does not misleadingly imply any 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 clearly identifies the tool as an explainer: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and lists what it returns. It is distinct from siblings like submit_enquiry and calculate because it is explicitly descriptive rather than action-oriented.
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' gives clear timing guidance: use this tool before the enquiry/submission workflow. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the intended context is strongly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.