describe_serviceFree: inspect Israel company-verification capabilities, exact paid/free boundaries, public-registry evidence scope, pricing, and limitations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The tool name and title are generic, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a free read-only inspection of capabilities and boundaries rather than a data-processing action. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It also clarifies what information will be reported (pricing, evidence scope, limitations), which goes beyond the annotations alone.
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 that front-loads 'Free:' and then packs a dense but clear list of what the tool covers. Every phrase ('capabilities', 'paid/free boundaries', 'evidence scope', 'ricing', 'limitations') earns its place, and no fluff or repetition is present.
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 takes no parameters, has no output schema, and the annotations already communicate safety and idempotency, the description supplies exactly the needed contextual scope: what the user can learn from it and the boundaries of the service. Nothing important is missing for an agent to decide to invoke this tool and understand what it will return.
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?
There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter ambiguity to explain. The description's 'Free:' and 'inspect ... capabilities' appropriately conveys that calling this tool requires no structured input or configuration. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is met.
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 ('inspect') plus a clear resource ('Israel company-verification capabilities') and enumerates what the tool exposes: paid/free boundaries, evidence scope, pricing, limitations. This clearly distinguishes describe_service from the operational siblings get_schema, preview_company, and verify_company.
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 this is the entry point for understanding service capabilities and pricing before using verification tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternative tools or when not to use it. The 'Free:' prefix hints at a low-cost discovery action, but no direct routing guidance is provided.
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 has a clearly distinct role: describe_service explains capabilities, get_schema provides data formats, preview_company offers a free limited lookup, and verify_company returns paid full evidence. The overlap between preview_company and verify_company is explicitly delineated by scope and pricing, leaving no ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: describe_service, get_schema, preview_company, verify_company. The verbs clearly indicate the action and nouns identify the target, creating a predictable and uniform naming scheme.
With only 4 tools, the server is tightly scoped to its purpose of Israeli company verification. Each tool serves a necessary function—discovery, integration support, free preview, and paid full verification—without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.
The tool set covers the full verification workflow: understand service limits, obtain schemas, perform a free preview, and run a paid full verification. Since the domain is read-only verification, there are no missing lifecycle operations, and the preview-to-verify path has no dead ends.