enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Mezzanine Floor 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 behavior disclosure. It states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the service is free, and that the return content includes recipients, consent wording, and confirmation mechanics. It stops short of explicitly saying 'this tool itself has no side effects,' but 'Read first' and 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' make the informational nature clear.
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 concise and front-loaded: 'Read first' immediately signals intent, followed by a compact explanation of the tool's purpose, exclusions, free status, and return contents. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy or 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?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what the tool is for, why it should be read first, what the enquiry experience entails, and what information will be returned. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation and understanding.
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 has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than on parameters, and no additional parameter documentation is needed for a parameterless tool.
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 what the tool does: it is a 'read first' description of what submit_enquiry does, contrasting an enquiry with a human against a purchase, order, or guaranteed quote. The title and description together distinguish it from the sibling submit_enquiry action by clarifying this tool is informational rather than action-oriented.
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 usage directive, telling the agent to consult this tool before submitting an enquiry. It also clarifies what submit_enquiry will and will not do, helping the agent avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly name enquiry_fields or describe the exact circumstances when this tool should be skipped.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.