enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Exhibition Stand 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid for, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the flow is free. It also lists what the tool returns: who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly say that this description tool itself has no side effects, but that is reasonably inferred.
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: it front-loads the imperative 'Read first', then gives essential facts in short sentences. Every sentence adds value: what the tool states, what is not guaranteed, and what information it returns. No filler or 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema informational tool, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the non-commitment nature, and the return contents. An agent can correctly understand what the tool does and what the user will see without additional context.
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?
There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so schema description coverage is 100%. The baseline is 4 because there is nothing for the description to add about parameters.
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 what submit_enquiry does', and identifies the resource and context: an enquiry on Exhibition Stand Cost. The title reinforces that this is informational. It does not explicitly contrast itself with enquiry_fields, so it misses the full sibling-differentiation mark.
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' is explicit positioning before calling submit_enquiry, and the description makes clear that this tool is for understanding the process. It does not mention when to use enquiry_fields instead, so while the usage context is clear, exclusions and alternatives are not fully spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.