enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Event Hire Costs: 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 of disclosing behavior. It makes clear this is an informational tool that describes behavior and returns specific details, implying no submission or side effect occurs. It also discloses what the returned content covers, which is useful beyond the tool name.
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 the most important guidance: 'Read first.' Each sentence adds useful information about what the tool does, what it clarifies, and what it returns, with no redundancy.
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 informational tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, the key facts it communicates, and the content of its return value. The agent has everything needed to decide when and how to call it.
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 accepts zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is appropriately strong.
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 that this tool explains what submit_enquiry does, naming the specific resource and the behavior it describes. It differentiates itself from the sibling tools by positioning itself as the 'Read first' companion to submit_enquiry.
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 to use this tool before submit_enquiry, providing clear contextual guidance. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but in context the usage is unmistakable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.