get_visitor_infoReturns practical visitor information for Sedona, AZ — Red Rock Pass requirements, state park hours and fees, popular attractions, best seasons to visit, and local tips. Perfect for tourist queries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No | Category of info — omit for all |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| info | Yes | ||
| location | Yes | ||
| last_verified | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds context about the content (e.g., practical info for Sedona) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like data sources or 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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the value proposition ('Returns practical visitor information') followed by specifics. Every sentence 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?
Given the output schema exists (as per context), the description need not explain return values. It covers all key aspects: what info types are included, and the context (Sedona, AZ, tourist queries). Complete for the tool's intended use.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with one enum parameter 'topic' and schema description 'Category of info — omit for all'. The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 returns practical visitor information for Sedona, AZ, listing specific categories like Red Rock Pass requirements, parks hours, attractions, seasons, and tips. It distinguishes from siblings like get_hiking_trails or get_weather by focusing on general tourist info.
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 says 'Perfect for tourist queries,' clearly indicating when to use. The enum parameter (topic) further guides on sub-categories. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives among the many sibling info tools.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct across categories (radio, local info, spiritual, listener management), but there is notable overlap: get_emergency_alerts and get_nws_alerts both provide alerts, and get_or_create_listener overlaps with register_listener. Also, get_chakra_frequencies, get_chakra_guide, and get_solfeggio are very similar. While descriptions help differentiate, agents may still struggle to select the right tool.
All tool names consistently use lowercase snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_weather, submit_song_request, log_listener_history). The verbs are predictable (get, search, submit, log, register, update) and there are no deviations like camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.
With 45 tools, the set is overgrown for a radio station server. Many tools are hyper-specific (e.g., separate tools for chakra frequencies, guide, and solfeggio; moon phase, sun times, and stargazing conditions). Consolidating similar functions would reduce cognitive load and improve coherence.
The tool set covers a broad range: radio operations, listener management, local news/weather, outdoor guides, spiritual content, etc. However, there are notable gaps: no tool to fetch full news articles (only headlines), no way to manage show schedules, and no donation or station info tools. Also, listener profile management is split across multiple tools, which feels incomplete.