enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Recruitment Agency Fees: 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 and does well: it states the tool returns a plain-language explanation, explicitly denies any purchase/payment/guarantee, and enumerates the returned content (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method). It does not explicitly state that calling the tool itself has no side effects, but the describe-and-return framing makes that evident.
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 instruction 'Read first.' Each sentence adds distinct value: what the tool explains, the non-transactional caveat, and the exact return contents. No filler or repetition within the description.
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 gives everything an agent needs: purpose, relationship to submit_enquiry, safety-relevant caveats, and a concrete list of returned details. There is no obvious missing 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, so the schema already fully covers the input surface (100% coverage). The description adds useful context about what will be returned, which is the relevant semantic information for a parameterless info tool.
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 plainly') and names the exact resource it explains: what submit_enquiry does on Recruitment Agency Fees. It also clarifies the non-transactional nature ('Nothing is bought... free'), which distinguishes this informational tool from the sibling submit_enquiry and enquiry_fields.
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 an explicit usage directive that tells the agent to consult this before acting. It clearly positions the tool as the explanatory companion to submit_enquiry, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.