enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Sponsor Licence 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the action is free, and that it returns who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This is strong transparency for a zero-parameter informational tool.
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 short, front-loaded with the 'Read first' instruction, and every sentence serves a purpose: setting the expected use, clarifying what the action is not, and stating what the tool returns. There is no filler or repetition.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it does not do, and what information it returns. An agent can correctly decide to invoke this tool before submit_enquiry and know what to expect from the response.
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 no parameters, so there is nothing additional the description needs to explain. The baseline of 4 applies here because the description appropriately says nothing about parameters that do not exist.
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 clearly identifies this as an informational tool that 'States plainly' what submit_enquiry does, rather than performing the submission itself. It names the specific subject (Sponsor Licence Cost) and contrasts it with a purchase or guaranteed quote, making its purpose unmistakable.
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' explicitly positions this tool as the prerequisite before using submit_enquiry, and the context explains that it is the descriptive counterpart to the submission action. It doesn't explicitly mention enquiry_fields or give a 'when not to use' list, but the primary usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.