enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Food Hygiene Alerts: 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, and it meets it well: it states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the enquiry is free, and that the tool returns recipient, consent, and confirmation details. This gives an agent a clear behavioral and side-effect profile without any structured annotation support.
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 directive 'Read first,' then moves immediately into the core action. Each sentence contributes either a behavioral boundary or return-value detail, though the title and opening sentence do overlap somewhat.
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?
Given zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: purpose, side-effect profile, and the contents of what is returned. It falls short of a 5 because it does not explicitly specify when in the workflow to call this tool, and the recipient details are named only generically.
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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. With no parameters present, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 the specific verb 'States' with a clear object: what submit_enquiry does, making this tool's role as an explanatory, pre-submission resource obvious. The title and body also explicitly distinguish an ENQUIRY from a purchase or a guaranteed quote, which separates it from siblings like 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' signals that this tool should be consulted before taking action, and the 'not a purchase / not a guaranteed quote' framing provides useful exclusions. However, it never explicitly tells the agent when to pick this tool over named alternatives such as submit_enquiry or enquiry_fields, so the routing guidance remains implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.