Get the full cancellation, refund and modification policy. Use this whenever a customer asks about cancelling, changing, or refunds — never guess the policy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context by emphasizing the policy is 'full' and instructing to 'never guess', which signals authoritative data. It doesn't mention side effects, but none are expected for a read-only policy fetch.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with 'Get' and the resource. Every word adds value—'full' qualifies the scope and 'never guess' provides an actionable guardrail.
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?
With zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. The policy content is specified (cancellation, refund, modification), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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, so the baseline is 4. The description needs to and does not explain any parameters, which is appropriate. All schema properties are covered (none exist).
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 identifies the exact resource (full cancellation, refund and modification policy). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like book_ride or get_quote by targeting a policy lookup only.
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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this whenever a customer asks about cancelling, changing, or refunds.' It also provides a clear directive not to guess the policy, giving the agent a rule for when to rely on this tool.
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 resource and action: booking a ride, booking a meet & greet, getting a quote, listing vehicles, resolving flights/trains/locations, sending contact, etc. No two tools overlap in purpose or could be easily confused.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern, with verbs like 'book_', 'get_', 'resolve_', and 'send_' clearly indicating the action. There are no exceptions or mixed conventions.
10 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and perfectly scoped for a chauffeur booking service. Each tool covers a necessary part of the workflow (quote, booking, location/flight/train resolution, vehicle info, policy, contact).
The core booking flow is well covered: resolve location/flight/train → get quote → book ride or meet & greet → send driver contact. However, there is no tool to cancel, update, or check the status of a booking, which requires external (Zeplan) access. This is a minor gap but workable for typical agent flows.