get_locationReturn online delivery and U.S. service coverage without exposing a private street address or accepting a location input.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| geo | Yes | ||
| offices | Yes | ||
| geo_radius | Yes | ||
| scope_note | Yes | ||
| headquarters | Yes | ||
| service_areas | Yes | ||
| remote_capable | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by disclosing the privacy behavior ('without exposing a private street address') and the lack of location input, which are not captured in the annotations. This is useful behavioral context beyond the structured metadata.
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?
The description is a single sentence that conveys purpose, scope, and a key behavioral constraint without any redundant wording. Every phrase earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains what the tool returns and the privacy design, which fully addresses the tool's purpose and limitations for an agent.
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, so schema description coverage is 100% by default. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details, and it correctly confirms that no location input is accepted.
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 tool's action ('Return online delivery and U.S. service coverage') and specifies the resource and scope. It also distinguishes itself by noting it does not accept a location input or expose a private address, setting it apart from sibling tools that might take location parameters.
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 implies when to use the tool: when coverage information is needed without requiring a location input or risking private address disclosure. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear for a zero-parameter tool that returns coverage data.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_info, get_location, get_services, lookup_deadline, lookup_exit_route, choose_workflow, and template retrieval are all separate concerns. However, get_info and get_services both touch on pricing/options, which could cause slight confusion.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_*, lookup_*, choose_*). The verbs are semantically appropriate, and the style is uniform throughout, making the set predictable.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a niche informational server focused on referral exit routes and deadlines. Each tool covers a distinct aspect, and the count does not feel excessive or sparse.
The toolset covers key information retrieval (business info, services, location), lookup of deadlines and exit routes, and workflow selection. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to list all supported networks, which would improve discoverability, but agents can work around this.