enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Steel Beam 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?
No annotations are provided, so 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 process is free, and that the returned content covers recipients, consent wording, and confirmation. This makes the tool's non-transactional, informational nature transparent.
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-loads the actionable instruction 'Read first,' and packs specific output details into two concise sentences. Every clause adds value: the process, the key disclaimers, and exactly what the returned explanation covers.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, why that information matters, and how it relates to the submit_enquiry flow, so no further documentation is needed to use it 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 schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics for the description to add. The description appropriately focuses on return content and behavior rather than parameters.
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 states a verb ('states') and a specific resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Steel Beam Checker'), and the title reinforces that this tool is informational rather than transactional. It is easily distinguished from submit_enquiry because it explicitly positions itself as describing that action rather than performing it.
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?
It opens with 'Read first,' which clearly signals to the agent that this tool should be invoked before taking submission-related actions. It references submit_enquiry and explains what the user gets, so the primary use case is clear, though it does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.