enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Patent Attorney 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 burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well by stating that nothing is bought, ordered, paid, or guaranteed, and that the enquiry is free. It also discloses what the tool returns: recipients, consent wording, and confirmation method. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly say the describe tool itself has no side effects, though the wording strongly implies it.
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 only three sentences and front-loads the most important usage instruction ('Read first'). Every sentence contributes either the tool's purpose, the key disclaimers, or the return contents, with no filler or unnecessary technical detail.
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 covers the essential ground: what the tool does, what it clarifies, and what it returns. It is nearly complete, but it does not position itself relative to enquiry_fields, leaving the sibling relationship to be inferred from context signals rather than the description.
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 is empty and has 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description still adds context about the output contents, which helps set expectations even though no parameters are involved.
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 a specific verb ('states') and identifies the exact resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Patent Attorney Cost'), making it clear this is an informational tool rather than the submission action itself. It explains the core facts of the enquiry process, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool enquiry_fields, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 directive 'Read first' clearly tells the agent to use this tool before submit_enquiry, establishing the intended sequencing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or directly contrast it with enquiry_fields, leaving some usage context implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.