Get a step-by-step guide for a Spanish procedure (booking portals, documents needed, common problems). Use list_procedure_guides for valid codes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | No | Guide language (default en) | |
| procedure | Yes | Procedure code, e.g. padron |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only retrieval (getting a guide) and mentions the content type, but does not disclose potential errors for invalid codes, return format, or any side effects. The mention of using list_procedure_guides hints at a prerequisite but stops short of explicit behavioral detail. Adequate given simplicity, but not rich.
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 sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the sibling routing is stated succinctly. Every word earns its place.
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 retrieval tool with only two parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description explains the return (a step-by-step guide) and gives actionable guidance for codes. It does not mention error behavior or output formatting, but these are not critical for a simple read tool. Missing a bit of depth but largely complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (language, procedure) are documented. The description adds value by illustrating the procedure parameter with an example ('padron') and contextualizing the guide content, but it does not go beyond schema meaning significantly. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 the verb 'Get' and the resource (step-by-step guide for a Spanish procedure), specifies the content areas (booking portals, documents needed, common problems), and explicitly distinguishes itself from list_procedure_guides by directing users there for valid codes. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable even among siblings.
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 explicitly instructs when to use list_procedure_guides ('for valid codes'), providing a clear alternative for code lookup. While it does not mention the other siblings (check_madrid_padron_availability, search_immigration_knowledge), the primary use case is well-defined and the most relevant alternative is named. Slightly incomplete but strong.
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 function: checking appointment availability, retrieving a specific guide, listing available guides, and searching the knowledge base. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their purposes, making it easy for agents to select the right tool.
All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern with snake_case: check, get, list, search. The naming is predictable and consistent, even the longer check_madrid_padron_availability adheres to the same structure.
With 4 tools, the surface is well-scoped for a specialized immigration knowledge server. Each tool provides clear value without redundancy, and the count is neither sparse nor overwhelming.
The tool set covers the server's stated purpose: checking live availability, accessing detailed procedural guides, enumerating available guides, and searching the knowledge base for pitfalls. There are no obvious gaps that would leave agents unable to accomplish common tasks.
