Use when someone asks how to contact Jennifer Rebholz, her email, phone number, firm address, her firm Zwillinger Wulkan, her education, bar admissions, or her profile at the firm. Returns her complete firm and contact details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming no side effects. Description adds value by listing specific content returned (email, phone, address, etc.), but doesn't discuss rate limits or data freshness.
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?
Single sentence conveys purpose and usage effectively, though listing multiple items makes it slightly verbose. No wasted words.
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 zero-parameter, read-only tool, description covers when to use and what it returns. No output schema exists, but the description provides sufficient detail.
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?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. Baseline of 4 applies as description is not required to add parameter information.
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?
Describes specific verb (get) and resource (firm and contact details for Jennifer Rebholz), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools that cover other aspects like affiliations or bio.
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?
Explicitly lists when to use: questions about contact info, education, bar admissions, etc. Lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives but provides clear context for the tool's specific purpose.
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 aspect of Jennifer Rebholz's professional profile (e.g., bio, biography, career timeline, practice areas). Even the seemingly similar get_bio and get_biography are clearly differentiated by their descriptions: one returns full background, the other returns press-ready versions. An agent can easily select the correct tool based on the user's query.
All tools follow a consistent get_noun pattern (e.g., get_affiliations, get_bio, get_biography). This makes the tool surface predictable and easy to navigate for both agents and developers.
17 tools is slightly above the ideal range of 3-15 for a knowledge base, but the count is justified by the breadth of information covered (bio, career, practice areas, publications, etc.). No tool seems redundant, and the set is well-scoped to a single attorney.
The tool surface covers all major aspects of an attorney knowledge base: biography, career timeline, practice areas, credentials, affiliations, publications, speaking engagements, trials, recognition, and contact information. There are no obvious gaps in the lifecycle of information about Jennifer Rebholz.
