enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Glazier 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 available, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that the tool returns information, clarifies the nature of the enquiry, and describes what the output covers: recipients, consent wording, and confirmation method. This is adequate transparency for a zero-parameter informational tool.
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 instruction ('Read first'). Every sentence contributes distinct value: purpose, what is not happening, and what the tool returns. There is no 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 simple no-parameter describe tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool is for, how it relates to submit_enquiry, and what the returned information contains. Nothing important 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 input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100% and there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.
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 states a specific purpose: it explains what submit_enquiry does, rather than performing an enquiry. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry tool by explicitly describing the nature of the outcome (an enquiry with human providers, not a purchase or guaranteed quote).
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 contextual signal that this tool should be used before acting, likely before submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage context is clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.