call_out_feeGet the call-out fee that applies to bookings. Use when the customer asks about the call-out fee, booking fee, or upfront cost for a booking.
| 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 destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the context that it applies to bookings, but does not disclose additional behavior such as return format or variability. It meets the minimum for adding value beyond 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core function first, then the usage scenario, achieving maximum clarity in minimal space.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema) and existing annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains what and when, but could slightly improve by explicitly noting that the return value is the fee amount (though implied).
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 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids parameter details since there are none, and the schema is empty. No additional parameter semantics needed.
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 a clear resource 'call-out fee' that applies to bookings. It distinguishes from sibling tools (list_services, service-estimate-card) by specifying the exact query context.
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 states when to use: 'when the customer asks about the call-out fee, booking fee, or upfront cost for a booking'. It provides clear context but does not mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
The tools have distinct purposes: call_out_fee retrieves a fee, list_services retrieves available services, and service-estimate-card generates an estimate summary card. However, service-estimate-card is somewhat vague and could be confused with a general output tool, but it doesn't overlap with the other two.
Tool names use mixed conventions: call_out_fee and list_services are snake_case, while service-estimate-card uses hyphens. Additionally, list_services follows a verb_noun pattern, but the other two are noun phrases, making the naming inconsistent.
With 3 tools, the server is minimal but reasonably scoped for an estimator that provides fee and service info. It is slightly thin but not unreasonable for a focused purpose.
The server covers fee lookup, service listing, and estimate card generation, but lacks tools for creating bookings or detailed estimate calculations. There are potential gaps in the workflow, though the core informational needs are addressed.