get_use_casesConcrete examples of tasks that have been defined for this service, plus the boundaries of what is knowingly not accepted. These are illustrations, not open listings — nothing here is available to claim.
| 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 openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those hints: results are curated, non-exhaustive illustrations, and the tool also exposes boundaries of what is knowingly not accepted. No contradiction with annotations.
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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose, the second adds the critical caveat that results are illustrative and non-claimable. Every word earns its place with no redundant filler.
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 zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent receives (task examples and rejection boundaries) and how to interpret it (illustrations, not open listings). It does not specify response format, but the simplicity of the tool keeps this gap minor.
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 schema coverage is trivially 100% and the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to explain about parameters, and it appropriately omits parameter details.
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 title ('Get example tasks') plus description ('Concrete examples of tasks that have been defined for this service') states a specific verb and resource with clear scope. It distinguishes from siblings by declaring these are 'illustrations, not open listings — nothing here is available to claim,' separating it from claim/submission-oriented tools like submit_request.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to view illustrative examples and understand acceptance boundaries. 'Nothing here is available to claim' implies a when-not (don't treat results as claimable submissions), though no sibling alternative is explicitly named.
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.