enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Motor Trade Insurance Compare: 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 transparency burden. It clearly states the action is non-transactional and free, and it discloses the returned content: recipient of details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It focuses on submit_enquiry's behavior rather than directly stating this tool is read-only, but the intent is 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 compact and front-loaded with the imperative 'Read first.' It repeats some information from the title (not a purchase, no guaranteed quote) but remains efficient and easy to parse.
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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, what it does not do, and what it returns. It could be slightly stronger on how it relates to the compare_* siblings, but the core context is complete.
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 100% schema coverage, so parameter documentation is unnecessary; the baseline 4 applies. The description adds useful output-focused context instead.
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 uses specific verbs ('States', 'returns') to identify a meta-descriptive tool that explains submit_enquiry. It distinguishes this tool from an actual purchase or quote action by explicitly saying 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed'.
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 a clear ordering cue to call this tool before submit_enquiry, and the description clarifies what the tool explains. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use conditions or contrast with compare_* siblings, so it falls just short of fully explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.