enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Damp Survey Prices: 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 disclosure burden and does useful work: it states the operation is free, that nothing is bought/ordered/paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the tool returns specific content (recipient details, consent wording, confirmation method). It does not explicitly state that this describe tool itself has no side effects, but describing an enquiry rather than performing one is strongly implied.
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, front-loaded with 'Read first,' and every sentence earns its place: scope, key disclaimers, and return contents. No redundancy or filler.
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 with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the key caveats an agent needs before submitting an enquiry. Nothing critical 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 and the schema already reflects that with 100% coverage, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Baseline of 4 applies; the description reinforces that no input is needed by focusing entirely on what the tool returns.
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 uses a specific verb ('states plainly') and names the resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Damp Survey Prices'), so an agent can tell it is an explanatory companion to submission, not the submission itself. It clearly communicates the core meaning—an enquiry with human providers, no purchase or guaranteed quote—but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the other sibling 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?
The opening 'Read first' gives a clear instruction to consult this tool before acting, and the description explains the submission process so an agent knows when it is relevant. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.