enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Notice Period Calculator: 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, and it delivers by disclosing what the tool returns: the nature of the enquiry (no purchase, no guaranteed quote, free), who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly state that this tool itself has no side effects, but 'states plainly' and 'returns' clearly mark it as informational.
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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the 'Read first' directive and the core purpose, then supplies key specifics about what the returned explanation contains. Every sentence earns its place.
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, this description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does, what information it returns, and when to use it ('Read first'), making the tool safely and correctly invocable without further context.
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 the empty schema provides 100% coverage. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate; there are no parameters for the description to clarify or compensate for.
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 specific verb and resource: 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Notice Period Calculator.' It explicitly names the sibling tool it describes, which distinguishes it from submit_enquiry itself and from calculator_describe. The title reinforces the subject matter without obscuring the tool's descriptive role.
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' is a clear directive that tells the agent to use this tool before engaging with submit_enquiry. It gives practical timing guidance, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools like calculator_describe or enquiry_fields or state conditions for choosing one over another. This keeps it from a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.