Check for additional tools whenever your task might benefit from specialized capabilities - even if existing tools could work as a fallback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | Yes | A description of your goal and what kind of tool would help accomplish it. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds useful context about when to call it, but it does not disclose what the tool returns or how the 'additional tools' are delivered, though this is partially implied by the tool name and openWorldHint.
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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action ('Check for additional tools') and packs the key usage condition and fallback guidance into a concise, readable statement.
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 one-parameter meta-tool, the description, annotations, and schema provide sufficient guidance to invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly describe the response format or what 'getting more tools' entails operationally, but this is largely inferable and not critical to calling the 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes the 'context' parameter well: 'A description of your goal and what kind of tool would help accomplish it.' The tool description adds the nuance of 'specialized capabilities,' but it does not add significant semantic detail 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's function: 'Check for additional tools.' It also identifies the purpose ('whenever your task might benefit from specialized capabilities') and implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which are domain-specific actions rather than a meta/discovery tool.
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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'whenever your task might benefit from specialized capabilities.' It even states the preferred behavior over existing alternatives with 'even if existing tools could work as a fallback,' making the decision boundary clear.
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 map cleanly to distinct funnel stages: qualify, match, customize, fit to budget, timeline, business case, offer, and booking. The only mild ambiguities are between match_package and fit_to_budget (both compose packages from budget input) and between request_offer and book_intro_call (both are conversion endpoints), though the descriptions do draw clear boundaries.
All nine tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case convention (get_partnership_options, customize_package, build_business_case, request_offer). get_more_tools is semantically a meta-tool, but it still follows the naming pattern, so there is no stylistic inconsistency.
Nine tools is a well-scoped size for a guided sales-funnel server, and each domain tool corresponds to a meaningful workflow step. get_more_tools is a generic meta-tool that doesn't fully earn its place, which keeps this from a perfect score.
The toolset covers the full partnership lifecycle from qualification and package matching through customization, budgeting, timeline design, business-case generation, and final offer/booking. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit package-catalog listing tool outside the matching flow and no direct handling of the individual-mentor path, but these are workaroundable or out of scope.