enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Asbestos Removal Costs: 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 states there is no purchase, order, or payment, no guaranteed quote, that it is free, and what the return content covers. This fully reveals the tool's informational, non-transactional nature.
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 the imperative 'Read first' and every subsequent sentence adds concrete, non-redundant detail: what the tool does, what it does not do, and what it returns. It is compact for the amount of useful information provided.
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 informational tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it explains the tool's role, the caveats an agent must know, and what the returned explanation covers. There are no significant gaps for an agent to call it 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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. Per baseline, a 4 is appropriate; the description need not compensate for schema gaps because none exist.
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 ('states plainly') and names the exact resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Asbestos Removal Costs'), making it clear this is an explanatory meta-tool, not the submission action itself. This also differentiates it from the sibling submit_enquiry 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 opening 'Read first' gives a clear signal to use this before the submission tool, and the body explains what submit_enquiry will and won't do. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_fields, but the intended usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.