enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Locum Tax Calculator: 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, no quote is guaranteed, it is free, and it lists what the tool returns (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method). This gives an agent a clear picture of the tool's output and the nature of the enquiry, even without an output schema.
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 that front-load the key directive ('Read first') and then concisely explain the tool's purpose and return value. It is efficient and each sentence earns its place, though the title partially duplicates the content.
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 parameters, the description is remarkably complete: it states the purpose, the caveats, and the exact return content (recipients, consent wording, confirmation). An agent knows exactly what to expect and when to call it. Nothing essential is missing.
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 schema description coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter information because none is needed. No deviation is warranted.
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 the tool's function: it explains what submit_enquiry does on the Locum Tax Calculator. It uses a specific verb ('states') and resource ('submit_enquiry'), and distinguishes itself from the actual submission tool and other describe tools like calculator_describe. The purpose is unambiguous.
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' explicitly instructs the agent to consult this tool before using submit_enquiry, providing a clear usage context. However, it does not mention alternative describe tools like enquiry_fields or calculator_describe, so the guidance is not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.