Get information about Follow On Tours — who we are, what we sell (bespoke cricket and golf travel), our experience, our financial protection, and how the service works. Use this when someone asks who Follow On Tours is, whether they cover a sport or destination, or how the service operates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. 'Get information' communicates a read-only behavior, and the content list tells the agent what kind of output to expect. It does not describe return formatting, but for a zero-parameter informational tool with no side effects, that is not a meaningful gap.
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 compact sentences: the first front-loads the action and resource plus a concise content list; the second gives practical usage triggers. Every word earns its place with no repetition or filler.
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?
The tool is minimal in complexity: no parameters, no output schema, no sibling tools. The description covers both what the call returns (company/about information) and when to use it, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so parameter ambiguity is impossible and no parameter explanation is needed. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for anything.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get information') on a specific resource ('Follow On Tours') and itemizes exactly what content is covered: who they are, products, experience, financial protection, and service mechanics. There are no siblings, so no inter-tool differentiation is required.
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?
Provides explicit trigger conditions: 'Use this when someone asks who Follow On Tours is, whether they cover a sport or destination, or how the service operates.' This gives an agent clear selection criteria, and with no sibling tools, there is no need for when-not or alternative 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.
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined.
With a single tool, naming consistency is not a issue. The name 'get_about' follows a clear verb_noun pattern.
The server claims to represent a tour service but provides only one informational tool. This is too few for the apparent scope, leaving core travel-related operations missing.
The server lacks any tools for browsing tours, making bookings, or managing itineraries, which are essential for a tour service. The single tool provides only basic company information.