enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Machinery 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 full disclosure burden and meets it: it explicitly states that an enquiry 'starts' with human providers, that 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid,' that no quote is guaranteed, and that it is free. It also discloses precisely what the description returns, including consent wording and confirmation details.
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 the most important cue ('Read first') and each subsequent clause carries distinct information: what the underlying tool does, what it does not do, cost, and return content. It is compact and free of filler.
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?
Even without an output schema, the description tells an agent what to expect back: recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation mechanism. It is adequate for a parameterless explanatory tool, though it stops short of specifying the exact textual format of the returned message.
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 input schema is empty (zero parameters), so the description needs to add no parameter-level meaning; the 0-param baseline of 4 applies. The description focuses correctly on behavior and returned content rather than inventing parameters.
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 opens with 'Read first' and states its exact function: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does on Machinery Repair Quotes.' It then enumerates the key facts returned (no purchase, no guaranteed quote, free, who receives details, consent wording, confirmation), which clearly distinguishes it from the action-oriented sibling submit_enquiry and from enquiry_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?
It signals when to call it via the imperative 'Read first,' indicating this should precede submit_enquiry, and it frames the tool as an explanatory overview rather than the actual submission flow. It does not explicitly mention enquiry_fields or give a when-not-to-use rule, so it falls short of the strongest routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.