enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Commercial Mortgage Calculator: 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 largely succeeds: it discloses that the enquiry is free, non-binding, and does not guarantee a quote, and it states what information the tool returns. It could be even more explicit that this describe tool itself has no side effects, but the content is clearly informational and non-contradictory.
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 front-loaded with the imperative 'Read first' and conveys key facts in a compact paragraph. It does slightly repeat caveats already present in the title, such as 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote', but it remains scannable and free of fluff.
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 no-parameter, no-output-schema description tool, this is complete: it explains what the tool does, what it clarifies, and what information it returns. It also proactively addresses likely user concerns about cost, commitment, and quote guarantees.
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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4.
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 clear descriptive verb ('States plainly') and explicitly names the subject ('what submit_enquiry does on Commercial Mortgage Calculator'). It also distinguishes the tool from the submission action by emphasizing that nothing is purchased, ordered, or paid, and no quote is guaranteed.
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' provides clear guidance that this tool should be consumed before interacting with submit_enquiry. It orients the agent toward the sibling tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly discuss all sibling alternatives such as enquiry_fields or calculator_describe.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.