get_booking_infoHow booking works, the formats offered, and how fees are handled. Fees are provided on inquiry, tailored to format and location. Response within two business days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and description adds that it provides informational content and mentions response time within two business days, which goes beyond annotations.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, no unnecessary words. Highly efficient.
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?
Given no parameters and no output schema, description covers the tool's purpose well. Could be improved by indicating whether output is plain text or structured.
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?
No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description doesn't need to compensate. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states it explains how booking works, formats, and fees handling. It distinguishes from siblings like submit_speaking_inquiry which is for submission. Could be more specific about the return format.
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?
Implied usage: when user needs to understand booking process or fees. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives like get_availability_guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct concern: profile, topics, availability, booking process, and inquiry submission. There is no overlap; an agent can easily select the right tool based on the user's intent.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'get_' for informational queries and 'submit_' for the action. The naming is uniform and predictable, making tool selection straightforward.
With exactly 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for a speaker booking server. Each tool serves a clear purpose and there are no redundant or missing essential functions.
The tool surface covers the entire lifecycle of a speaking inquiry: profile discovery, topic details, availability guidance, booking procedures, and the actual submission. While some specifics (rates, exact dates) are only provided on inquiry, that is consistent with the server's stated design and leaves no dead ends.