enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Bat Survey 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 burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently explains what submit_enquiry does (starts an enquiry, nothing is bought/guaranteed, free) and what enquiry_describe itself returns. It does not explicitly state that enquiry_describe has no side effects, but 'Read first' and 'States plainly' strongly suggest a read-only explanatory operation.
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 concise and well-structured: it front-loads the key instruction ('Read first'), states the core purpose, clarifies what is NOT true about the enquiry, and then lists the return content. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancies.
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 explainer tool, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, why an agent should read it first, what submit_enquiry does and does not do, and what information the describe tool returns. Nothing essential is missing for selecting and invoking this 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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description still provides useful context about what the tool does, but it does not need to add parameter-level detail because the input schema is empty and coverage is 100%.
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 role: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Bat Survey Cost' — a descriptive, meta-level action distinct from performing the enquiry. The verb 'states' plus the resource 'what submit_enquiry does' makes the purpose specific and differentiates it from the sibling action tool submit_enquiry.
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 phrase 'Read first' gives a clear directive to use this tool before engaging with submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context strongly implies this is the preparatory/explainer tool, so an agent can infer when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.