enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Industrial Flooring 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 at all, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it discloses that no purchase, order, or payment occurs, that quotes are not guaranteed, that the service is free, and that the tool returns who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation behavior. This is unusually thorough behavioral disclosure.
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, front-loaded with 'Read first', and every sentence earns its place. It efficiently covers the tool's informational purpose, key disclaimers, and what it returns without unnecessary elaboration.
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 fully equips an agent to decide when to call it and what to expect. It covers the core behavior, exceptions, and return details, leaving no critical gap.
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 already covers this completely, so no parameter documentation is needed. Per the zero-parameter baseline, a 4 is appropriate since the description adds no parameter detail but none is required.
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 states that this tool explains what submit_enquiry does, using an explicit verb ('states plainly') and specific resource context ('Industrial Flooring Cost'). It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by describing rather than performing the enquiry action, and from enquiry_fields by focusing on behavioral outcomes rather than fields.
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' gives an explicit usage directive, implying this should be consulted before calling submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly discuss when to use enquiry_fields or when not to use this tool, but the context strongly suggests it is the preliminary informational tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.