enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Cyber Insurance 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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the underlying submit_enquiry flow involves no purchase, no guaranteed quote, and no cost, and it states exactly what the tool returns. It could be more explicit that this tool itself is read-only, but the informational framing makes 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?
Two short sentences with the key instruction 'Read first' front-loaded. Minor redundancy with the title ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' vs 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed') keeps it from a 5.
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 without an output schema, the description is self-contained: it explains the purpose, the domain, the reassurance about cost/purchase, and the return content. It could more directly define the tool's relation to enquiry_fields, but the essential facts an agent needs are present.
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 vacuously 100%, so there is no parameter documentation gap to compensate for. Baseline of 4 applies; no additional parameter meaning 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 says the tool 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and lists the returned details (recipients, consent wording, confirmation), so its informational role is clear. It names submit_enquiry as the subject and implicitly contrasts with that action tool, though it never explicitly contrasts with enquiry_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?
'Read first' gives an explicit when-to-use directive, telling the agent to consult this before acting on submit_enquiry. It doesn't spell out when to prefer enquiry_fields or explicitly say 'use instead of', but the reading-first instruction provides a clear use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.