enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Heritage Statement 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the enquiry is free. It also discloses what the tool returns, making the informational nature of this tool clear. It could more directly state that this tool itself performs no submission, but the wording strongly implies it.
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 two sentences and front-loads the most important instruction ('Read first'). Every clause contributes meaningful information: what the tool explains, what it does not do, and what it 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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It identifies the subject, the key exclusions, and the return contents. An agent can decide to call it and know what to expect without additional schema or annotations.
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 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not introduce any confusion about inputs.
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 names a specific verb and resource: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Heritage Statement Cost.' It also clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on explanation rather than submission, and notes it returns specific information. This is unambiguous and differentiated.
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 explicit guidance to use this before acting, and the description clarifies what submit_enquiry is not (a purchase, order, payment, or guaranteed quote). It does not explicitly name when to prefer this over enquiry_fields, but the advisory tone and focus on explaining the flow provide clear enough context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.