enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on New Employment Rules: 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 behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the action is free. It also states what the tool returns, giving the agent confidence that this is an informational read path.
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, front-loaded with the most important call to action ('Read first'), and every sentence adds useful information. It avoids repetition and fluff while covering purpose, constraints, and return 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?
For a zero-parameter explainer tool with no output schema, the description provides the key context an agent needs: what the related action does, what is guaranteed versus not, and what information will be returned. It could slightly expand on prerequisites, but 'Read first' sufficiently signals that no prior state is expected.
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 an empty schema, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description appropriately focuses on purpose and output rather than inventing parameter guidance.
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 names a specific resource (submit_enquiry on New Employment Rules) and states the tool's exact role: explaining what that action does. It is clearly distinguished in the title as informational rather than transactional, and the 'Read first' framing makes the intent unmistakable.
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?
'Read first' gives a clear placement as an introductory/pre-flight tool before using submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use the checker siblings, so it stops short of full alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.