enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Site Investigation 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 full burden and handles it well: it explicitly states that no purchase/order/payment occurs, no quote is guaranteed, and the service is free. It also discloses exactly what the tool returns (recipient details, consent wording, confirmation process), so the agent knows the informational scope and side-effect profile.
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?
Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: instruction to read, core purpose, non-sales caveats, and return contents. The description front-loads 'Read first' and avoids filler.
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 is complete: it explains what the tool communicates, what caveats apply, and what content is returned. The only minor omission is not mentioning enquiry_fields, but the tool itself is self-contained and low-complexity.
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 schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage by default, so there is nothing for the description to add about argument semantics. The baseline 4 applies because no parameter explanation is 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 uses an explicit descriptive verb ('States plainly') and names the exact resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Site Investigation Cost'), so the agent understands this is an informational/explainer tool rather than the action itself. The title and the closing sentence about returned details also distinguish it from 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' tells the agent to consult this tool before acting on submit_enquiry, and it names submit_enquiry as the operation being explained. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_fields or specify when not to use the tool, so it falls 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.