enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Prescription Price Checker: 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 fully carries the behavioral burden, and it does so well. It discloses that this tool starts an enquiry with human providers, that nothing is bought or paid for, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and that it returns consent wording and confirmation details. This gives the agent clear expectations about side effects and output.
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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the 'Read first' instruction, followed by a clear summary of what the tool does and returns. It is slightly redundant with the title's 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' phrasing, but the additional return-value detail 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, no-output-schema informational tool, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, what submit_enquiry does, what the user can expect, what information is returned, and how it should be used relative to the submission flow. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.
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 the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context about what the returned content will cover, but there are no parameters to document, so no additional parameter-level semantics are needed.
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 clear, specific purpose: it describes what submit_enquiry does on Prescription Price Checker, with an explicit 'Read first' instruction. It differentiates itself from submit_enquiry by clarifying that no purchase, order, payment, or guaranteed quote is involved, so an agent can distinguish this informational tool from the sibling action tools.
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' clearly signals that this tool should be used before submit_enquiry, and the description explains the nature of the enquiry so an agent knows what it is getting into. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond submit_enquiry, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.