enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Agricultural Building 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral context: nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free. It also describes what information the tool returns. It stops short of explicitly stating that this tool itself is side-effect-free, but the descriptive wording makes that 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 front-loaded with 'Read first' and each sentence earns its place: purpose, no-sale reassurance, and returned contents. It is compact, scannable, and free of 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema informational tool, this description is complete. It explains what the tool is for, what submit_enquiry does, the reassurance that no commitment occurs, and exactly what information is returned.
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 useful context about what the returned explanation covers, which is all that is needed here.
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 states the tool's purpose: it explains what submit_enquiry does, including the no-purchase, no-guarantee nature of the enquiry. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the 'read first' explanatory tool while submit_enquiry is the actual action tool.
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' is an explicit cue that this tool should be used before submit_enquiry. It doesn't enumerate exclusions or mention enquiry_fields as an alternative, but the sequencing guidance is clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.