enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Hydraulic Repair Quotes: 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 provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states there is no purchase, no payment, no guaranteed quote, and that the service is free, which is critical safety-relevant context for an agent deciding whether to invoke the workflow.
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 'Read first.' Each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: what the tool does, what it does not do, and what it returns. It is slightly dense but every clause contributes value.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's informational nature, its scope, and its return contents. It could be slightly more explicit about being a safe read-only describe action, but the non-transactional language strongly implies 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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description correctly focuses on the tool's output and purpose rather than inventing irrelevant parameter details.
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 ('States plainly') and a clear resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Hydraulic Repair Quotes'), so an agent can tell this is an informational/explainer tool rather than a transactional one. It also explicitly contrasts with 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote,' which distinguishes it from 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 phrase 'Read first' signals that this tool should be consulted before acting, giving a clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer enquiry_fields, but it makes the relationship to submit_enquiry obvious without leaving major ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.