enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Clinical Waste Quotes: 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 behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the service is free, and what information is returned. This gives the agent a strong safety and expectations profile without needing annotations.
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 fluff. 'Read first' front-loads the key usage instruction, and every subsequent sentence adds distinct value: what the tool explains, what does not happen, and what specific information is returned.
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, this description is complete. It explains the tool's role, the domain, the non-transactional guarantees, and enumerates the returned content (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation mechanism). No output schema exists, but the description provides sufficient detail for correct use.
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 the description appropriately mentions none. Since the tool requires no input, the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter information that the description would need to add.
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 states a specific purpose: it explains what submit_enquiry does on Clinical Waste Quotes. It clearly distinguishes itself from the action tool by saying it 'states plainly' rather than performing the enquiry, and the title reinforces that it is informational, not transactional.
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' explicitly tells the agent to use this before other actions, and the description names submit_enquiry as the subject it explains. It does not mention enquiry_fields as an alternative, but the context is clear enough for an agent to understand this is the preparatory/explainer tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.