Get general information about the lie detector test service: what is offered, how booking works, the deposit and refund policy, the service area, and what happens after booking. Takes no arguments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the content of the returned information (what is offered, booking process, deposit/refund, service area, post-booking), which goes beyond the annotations. No behavioral contradictions.
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 two sentences. The first sentence concisely enumerates the types of information returned. The second sentence clarifies no arguments are needed. No redundant or filler 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?
Without an output schema, the description fully explains the return value by listing topics. For a no-parameter tool that simply returns static information, this is complete and sufficient. No additional context is needed.
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 input schema has zero parameters. The description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments', which is fully appropriate and adds no unnecessary detail. Schema coverage is 100% with no parameters, so no compensation needed.
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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'general information about the lie detector test service', listing concrete topics (offerings, booking, deposit/refund, service area, post-booking). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'find_offices' (office locations), 'get_booking_status' (specific booking status), 'get_pricing' (pricing details), and 'start_booking' (initiating a booking).
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 states it 'takes no arguments,' which simplifies usage. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives, the sibling names and the description's focus on general info implicitly guide the agent to use this tool when needing an overview, not specific per-booking or per-office details.
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 action: find offices, check booking status, get pricing, get service info, and start a booking. No overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., find_offices, get_booking_status).
With 5 tools covering the main booking workflow (search, info, pricing, start, status), the count is well-scoped for the service.
The tools cover the primary booking flow, but lack update or cancel functionality. However, those actions are handled by the person on the website, so the gap is minor.
