enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Industrial Cleaning 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?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains what the tool returns (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation method) and frames itself as descriptive of submit_enquiry, but it never explicitly states that calling this tool does not itself start an enquiry or have side effects. Given the title's wording, that omission is a meaningful gap.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the 'Read first' instruction, and wastes little space. It could be slightly tighter since the title already carries some of the same meaning, but overall it is concise and well organized.
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 covers the essential context: what process it explains, what the user can expect, and what information it returns. It is not exhaustively detailed about output formatting, but the low complexity makes the current detail adequate.
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 has no properties, so the baseline is 4. No parameter-level explanation is needed, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter guidance.
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 clearly identifies the tool's job: it states what submit_enquiry does, framing it as an informational description rather than the submission itself. It names the resource (Industrial Cleaning Quotes enquiry process) and the sibling it explains, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with enquiry_fields, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 phrase 'Read first' is a clear directive to use this tool before acting on submit_enquiry, which gives an agent a concrete usage cue. It does not explicitly describe when not to use it or compare alternatives, but 'Read first' provides sufficient context for a 0-parameter informational tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.