check_service_areaCheck whether an address or district is inside the service area, without describing a task. Use this for a fast yes/no before planning anything.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | Yes | Address, postal code or district. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it states the tool performs a fast yes/no check, clarifying the nature and scope of the response. It does not contradict the annotation.
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, front-loaded with the action and purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate: it explains the purpose, input, and use case. It implies the output is a yes/no result, which is sufficient. It does not delve into edge cases or error handling, but these are not critical for such a simple tool.
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 schema description covers 100% of the single parameter 'location' with 'Address, postal code or district.' The tool description adds no new details about the parameter beyond that, so it relies on the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.
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's function: checking whether an address or district is inside the service area. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('service area'), and distinguishes it from siblings like quote_task and submit_request by focusing on the pre-planning eligibility check.
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 explicitly says to use the tool 'for a fast yes/no before planning anything,' providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the phrasing implies it is not for detailed planning or task descriptions, which differentiates it from sibling 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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but get_use_cases and list_capabilities both describe service offerings, creating mild ambiguity about which to call. check_service_area and quote_task also overlap slightly on eligibility checks.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_, get_, list_, quote_, submit_), making the set highly predictable and readable.
Five tools is well within the ideal range and each covers a distinct step in the enquiry workflow, from eligibility check to submission, without unnecessary bloat.
The enquiry lifecycle is well covered: eligibility, capabilities, examples, quoting, and submission. However, there is no tool to track or manage a submitted enquiry, which is a minor gap.