enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Commercial Laundry 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 full burden and does well: it explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the tool is free. It also discloses what information the tool returns, giving the agent a clear picture of side effects and output.
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 concise and front-loaded with the critical instruction 'Read first.' Every sentence adds useful information, and it avoids repeating schema or annotation content.
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 simple, parameterless, informational tool, the description is complete: it explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, what behavioral guarantees apply, and what the return content covers. Nothing essential is missing.
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 the schema already fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the baseline of 4 applies.
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 the explainer for submit_enquiry, stating its exact function: it describes what happens with an enquiry. It also distinguishes itself from the action-oriented sibling submit_enquiry by emphasizing that nothing is purchased or 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?
The opening 'Read first' explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: before acting on submit_enquiry. It also names submit_enquiry as the action tool, making the alternative clear, and implicitly positions enquiry_describe as the non-action, informational choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.