enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Latent Defects Insurance 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 takes on the transparency burden and clearly discloses that nothing is bought/ordered/paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that it is free. It also states what the response contains (recipient details, consent wording, confirmation mechanism); only a direct statement that this tool itself is side-effect-free is absent.
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 front-loaded with 'Read first' and every subsequent sentence earns its place: purpose, key caveats, and return-value contents. There is no filler or redundancy beyond the minimal repetition of the title's caveat.
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 an informational, zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains why to call it, what the underlying submit_enquiry does, what is not true about it, and what information the response will convey. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.
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 input schema already covers everything (100% coverage), so there is no parameter burden for the description. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter details could add value.
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 identifies a specific verb ('States plainly') and resource ('what submit_enquiry does'), and the title frames the deliverable as an explanation rather than a purchase or quote. This makes it immediately distinct from the sibling submit_enquiry, which is the action tool.
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?
'Read first' is an explicit positional cue to invoke this tool before submit_enquiry, and the caveats tell the agent what it will learn. It does not explicitly name when to prefer enquiry_fields or exclude alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.