enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Business Valuation 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. It sets expectations that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, no quote is guaranteed, and the service is free. It also lists the return content: recipients, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly state that the describe call itself is side-effect-free, but 'States plainly' implies a read-only informational 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?
Three short sentences with the workflow instruction front-loaded ('Read first.') and every subsequent sentence carrying essential expectation-setting or return-value information. No 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?
There is no output schema, so the description must explain what comes back; it does, listing recipients, consent wording, and confirmation behavior. It also clarifies the business context: free and no guarantee. It would be slightly more complete if it explicitly named enquiry_fields as the place to get form fields.
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 full coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline 4 applies because no parameter compensation is needed.
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 one that 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' on Business Valuation Cost, giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by framing itself as the informative precursor rather than the action, but it does not mention the sibling enquiry_fields, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.
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?
'Read first' gives an explicit workflow position: use this before submitting an enquiry. The description also implies the alternative is submit_enquiry when the user is actually ready to act. It does not name exclusions or mention enquiry_fields, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.