Get all FAQ questions and answers for this site (Wix FAQ). Grouped by category. Use this to answer common questions about the site — opening hours, parking, policies, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only operation ('Get all...') with no side effects, which is sufficient given no annotations. It doesn't detail auth or rate limits, but for a simple list tool, this is adequate.
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 concise sentences: first states purpose and structure, second provides usage context. No wasted words.
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?
The description lacks information about the return format (e.g., field names) and does not mention what happens when there are no FAQs. With no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.
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, so the schema is fully described. The description adds no parameter info, but the baseline score of 4 applies for this case.
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 it retrieves all FAQ questions and answers, grouped by category, and provides concrete examples like opening hours and policies. This uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among siblings.
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 says to use it for answering common questions and gives example topics. While it doesn't mention when not to use it, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.
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 targets a distinct resource or action (booking, checkout, availability, events, reviews, etc.). Even similar-looking tools like create_booking, request_reservation, and rsvp_event are clearly differentiated by their descriptions and target systems.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_booking_services). No mixing of conventions or unclear verbs.
28 tools is on the higher end, but the server covers a wide domain (places, events, movies, booking, forms, loyalty, etc.). Each tool serves a clear purpose, so the count is justifiable, though minor trimming could be considered.
The tool set covers most workflows for a neighborhood directory: search, details, booking, events, reviews, etc. Some CRUD operations are missing (no update/delete for bookings), but these are consumer-facing actions where that is acceptable. The domain is well-covered.
