Send an inquiry to FerroLaser's sales engineers — for fiber laser machine quotes, part/component sourcing, or technical consultation. A human engineer replies within one business day. Requires name, a valid email, and a message describing the need.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| Yes | |||
| phone | No | ||
| company | No | ||
| country | No | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| part_or_model | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a human engineer replies within one business day, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention what happens after submission (e.g., confirmation, response channel), rate limits, or any other operational details.
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 exactly two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the action and then adds essential context (human reply, requirements). Every sentence earns its place.
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 submission tool with no output schema and 7 parameters, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the core behavior and required fields but omits optional parameter semantics and any post-submission expectations. Given sibling tools are retrieval-only, this stands out as an actionable tool, yet more detail on optional inputs and outcomes would make it fully complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that name, email, and message are required and that message should describe the need, but it does not provide any guidance for optional fields like phone, company, country, or part_or_model. The purpose of these optional fields remains ambiguous.
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 action ('Send an inquiry'), the target ('FerroLaser's sales engineers'), and the purpose ('quotes, part/component sourcing, or technical consultation'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that are focused on retrieving information rather than submitting requests.
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 specifies when to use this tool: for quotes, sourcing, or consultation. It implies that sibling tools are for research/bypassing human contact, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The use cases and human response time provide clear context.
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 distinct purpose: search for cards, fetch full card, get overview, list brands, and submit inquiry. No overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern with underscores (get_brand_overview, get_part_card, list_brands, search_parts_knowledge, submit_inquiry). Consistent and predictable.
5 tools is well-scoped for a knowledge base server. It covers browsing, searching, retrieving details, and contacting support without being too sparse or bloated.
The tool surface fully supports the intended domain: overview, search, full card retrieval, brand listing, and human inquiry. No obvious missing functionality for this knowledge base use case.