enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Corp Tax Calculator: 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, and it does disclose the return content: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms. It also clarifies the underlying process is free and non-binding. It does not explicitly say the tool itself has no side effects, but the describe-only role and empty schema make that clear.
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 compact and front-loaded with 'Read first', and every clause adds a distinct fact: what the tool explains, the no-purchase/no-guarantee caveat, and the return contents. There is no filler or repetition of schema 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 parameterless read-only explainer with no output schema, the description gives enough detail about the returned text to let an agent use it correctly. It could more explicitly frame itself as the pre-submission companion to submit_enquiry, but the title and 'Read first' largely cover that relationship.
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 are no parameter gaps for the description to fill. The description appropriately focuses on what the returned explanation contains instead of inventing input semantics. This meets the baseline for a parameterless tool.
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 what the tool does: it returns a plain-language explanation of what submit_enquiry does on Corp Tax Calculator. The title and negative framing (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote) distinguish it from submit_enquiry and other siblings. This goes beyond a tautology by naming the exact resource and output content.
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' signals that this tool is intended to be consulted before the enquiry flow, and the description clarifies it is an informational helper rather than an action tool. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or say 'use submit_enquiry when the user actually wants to submit', but the intended context is strongly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.