enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Marine Survey 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, no quote is guaranteed, it is free, and it lists the return content (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation). This is strong transparency for an informational tool.
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 and front-loaded with 'Read first.' It packs necessary information without wasted words, though the semicolon-dense middle sentence is slightly less readable than ideal.
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 zero parameters, the description covers the return content, its relationship to submit_enquiry, and safety expectations (no purchase). Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing, though a brief note on enquiry_fields would enhance completeness.
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?
There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description has nothing to add about inputs. The baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool applies.
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 states a clear, specific purpose: to explain what submit_enquiry does on Marine Survey Cost. It distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by being a read-first informational tool, and the title reinforces that it is about an enquiry, not a purchase or guaranteed quote.
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' is an explicit when-to-use directive, positioning this tool before submit_enquiry. It clarifies what the tool is not (a purchase or guaranteed quote), but it does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_fields, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.