Rental offices (pickup/return locations) of a company: name, city, address, opening hours, timezone, coordinates. Use the office NAME in search_availability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | No | Language of the conversation, BCP-47 (es, en, pt-BR, fr, de, it…). Defaults to 'en'. Bota also answers in the language the customer writes. | |
| company_id | Yes | Company id from list_rental_companies. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the payload contents (name, city, address, hours, timezone, coordinates), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of noting pagination, scoping, or any auth constraints.
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?
Two tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields, then closing with the cross-tool instruction. The field enumeration is dense but each item carries information the agent cannot get elsewhere since there is no output schema.
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 simple read-only lookup with 100% schema coverage, the description supplies the missing return-shape information and names the downstream consumer of the office name. With annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema to lean on, this is close to complete, though it omits any indication of result volume or filtering.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%: language and company_id are both fully documented, including where company_id comes from (list_rental_companies). The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 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?
The description names the resource precisely ('rental offices / pickup-return locations of a company') and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It is clearly distinct from sibling getters like list_rental_companies or search_availability, though the listing verb itself is only implied by the field enumeration.
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 sentence 'Use the office NAME in search_availability' gives a concrete downstream usage rule and implicitly routes the agent through the office-list to availability search. However, it never states when NOT to use this tool or contrasts it directly with alternative office-related siblings, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.