enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Care Inspectorate Registration: 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, and it does well: it discloses the no-purchase/no-payment/no-guaranteed-quote nature, states it is free, and explains what the tool returns: who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method.
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 stays compact, but there is some redundancy between the title's 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' and the description's repeated negations. Still, every sentence contributes useful 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 0-parameter documentation tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the domain, the relationship to submit_enquiry, the safety/financial implications, and the specific return content. An agent has enough to decide when to call it and know what to expect.
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 nothing to document beyond the empty schema. The rubric's baseline of 4 for 0-param tools applies; no further parameter explanation 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 uses a specific verb ('States plainly') and names the exact resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Care Inspectorate Registration'), making the tool's documentation role obvious. It also disambiguates the tool from submit_enquiry itself by clarifying nothing is purchased, ordered, or paid and no quote is guaranteed.
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' is an explicit directive to use this tool before the action it describes, giving clear context for when it should be invoked. It does not explicitly contrast it with enquiry_fields or state when not to use it, which keeps it from a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.