get_contact_and_bookingHow to get in touch: email, phone, the booking link for a free 30 minute review, contact page, response time and location.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool's safe, non-mutating nature is covered. The description adds value by specifying the returned content types (email, phone, booking link, response time, location), which is useful in the absence of an output schema.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and enumerates the included details without wasted words. Every listed item adds useful information for the agent.
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, read-only, idempotent tool, the description is complete: it lists the concrete result contents and the annotations cover behavior. No output schema exists, but the enumerated fields compensate by telling the agent what to expect.
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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description appropriately focuses on what information the tool returns rather than input details.
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 title 'Get contact and booking details' provides a clear verb and resource, and the description enumerates exactly what is included: email, phone, booking link, contact page, response time, and location. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_article or get_profile, though the description itself relies partly on the title for the verb.
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 the tool is used when you need contact or booking information, and the listed contents make that context clear. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_profile or search, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
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 maps to a distinct resource or action: individual articles, case studies, services, profile, ventures, contact info, and search are clearly separated. The only mild overlap is contact details appearing in both get_profile and get_contact_and_booking, but their purposes remain distinct.
Tool names follow a consistent get_<singular> / list_<plural> convention, with search as a single clear outlier. The pattern makes it easy to predict that list_* returns collections and get_* returns one item.
Ten tools is well-scoped for a personal website and consulting content server. Each tool covers a meaningful retrieval need without redundancy or bloat.
The server provides complete read-side coverage for the apparent domain: listing and retrieving articles, case studies, and services, plus profile, ventures, contact, and cross-content search. No create/update/delete operations are needed for a public content site, so there are no meaningful gaps.