enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Commercial Heat Pump 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 behavioral burden. It discloses that no purchase, order, or payment occurs, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and that it returns specific consent and confirmation details. While it doesn't explicitly state that the tool itself performs no side effects, the 'Read first' framing and the focus on describing submit_enquiry imply a non-mutating informational tool.
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 sentences deliver the core message efficiently, with 'Read first' front-loaded as an immediate instruction. There is minor redundancy with the title (which already says 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote'), but the description remains tight and purposeful.
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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states what the tool does, what it returns, and the non-committal nature of the enquiry. It doesn't describe an output structure, but that is unnecessary for a descriptive tool. It could mention the sibling enquiry_fields more explicitly, but that is not a significant gap.
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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and no parameter-related gap exists.
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 this tool's role: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' and returns the consent wording, recipient details, and confirmation flow. It is explicitly differentiated from submit_enquiry, which performs the actual submission, and from enquiry_fields by focusing on explaining the enquiry process rather than collecting fields.
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' gives a clear contextual signal that this tool should be used before submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with enquiry_fields, but the 'Read first' instruction and the description's focus on explanation provide adequate usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.