get_agency_infoFacts about Social Cooks GmbH, the Munich-based social media marketing agency (Meta Ads, TikTok Ads, Feed Hacking) for profitable e-commerce growth: contact, address, founders, entry points for further reading.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language of the returned content (default: de). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the tool returns facts (contact, address, founders, entry points). However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or rate limits.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose. However, it is slightly run-on and could be broken into shorter sentences for clarity.
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 simple info tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what will be returned (contact, address, founders, entry points). It does not mention whether the info is static or dynamic, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'lang' fully documented via enum and description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage context for the parameter beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool provides 'Facts about Social Cooks GmbH' including contact, address, founders, and entry points. It specifies the agency's focus on social media marketing for e-commerce, and the resource is distinct from sibling tools like get_case_studies or list_services.
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 use when needing basic agency information but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools are listed in context but not referenced in the description.
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 purpose: agency info, case studies, services listing, account check request, and general knowledge search. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (get_, list_, request_, search_). Clear and predictable.
Five tools cover the main interactions needed for this domain without being too few or excessive. Each tool serves a clear role.
Covers key areas: company info, services, case studies, a specific action (account check), and a catch-all search for unanswered questions. No obvious gaps.