enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Borehole Drilling 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid for, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the process is free, while also describing the returned content. It does not explicitly state that the tool itself is read-only, but the wording strongly implies it.
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 three sentences with no filler. 'Read first' front-loads the key usage instruction, followed by a precise explanation of the enquiry's nature and a concise list of what the tool returns. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.
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, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what the enquiry process entails, and what content the tool returns. The sibling tools are simple enough that this description fully equips the agent to invoke 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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed, and the description introduces no confusing parameter-related content.
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 function: it describes what submit_enquiry does, explicitly distinguishing an enquiry from a purchase or guaranteed quote. The title reinforces the purpose, and the description names the sibling submit_enquiry, making the tool's informational role unambiguous.
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 instruction 'Read first' strongly signals that this tool should be used before acting on the enquiry process. It clearly implies the tool is for orientation rather than submission, but it does not explicitly mention or contrast with enquiry_fields or specify when not to use it beyond the implied prerequisite role.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.