get_service_infoFull business facts: fleet, pricing list, policies, service area, contact details. Use this before answering questions about GC Airport Transfers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds content scope (fleet, pricing, policies, service area, contact details) and domain context, which is useful. There is no contradiction and no unmentioned behavioral traits.
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: the first lists the data categories, the second gives usage instruction. 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 parameterless lookup tool, the description completely conveys the purpose, content, and appropriate usage context. No output schema exists, but the described content categories sufficiently set expectations.
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 the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description is not required to explain parameters; it correctly focuses on the response content.
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 explicitly states the tool retrieves 'Full business facts' including fleet, pricing, policies, service area, and contact details. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the preliminary reference for GC Airport Transfers questions.
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 description gives a clear usage directive: 'Use this before answering questions about GC Airport Transfers.' It implies this is the first stop for general business information, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings for availability/quote/booking scenarios.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: availability checks, pricing quotes, service information, and booking requests. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_availability, get_quote, get_service_info, request_booking). The naming is uniform and predictable.
Four tools is well-scoped for a booking-focused server, covering the essential pre-booking and booking request steps without redundancy.
The core lifecycle of checking, quoting, and requesting a booking is covered. Missing cancel/status tools are a minor gap since the server emphasizes booking requests rather than full booking management.