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?
The annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, openWorldHint) already cover the safety profile, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. The description adds a behavioral nuance (use even if fallback exists) but does not disclose what the tool actually returns or any side effects beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction with 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 that conveys both the action and a key usage condition without any fluff. It is concise and immediately understandable, earning full marks for efficiency.
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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema) and the description gives a clear purpose. However, it doesn't state what the tool actually returns (e.g., a list of tool definitions), how the agent should interpret the result, or whether it modifies the environment. Given the openWorldHint annotation, some behavior is implied, but explicit clarification 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?
The schema already provides a description for the 'context' parameter (100% coverage). The tool description doesn't add meaningful detail about the parameter's format or semantics—it merely echoes the general purpose. Since the schema handles the parameter explanation, the description provides little extra value here.
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 states a clear verb ('Check for') and resource ('additional tools'), indicating the tool is for discovering specialized capabilities. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which are domain-specific) by being a meta-tool. However, it doesn't specify what 'check' returns (e.g., a list of tool definitions), leaving some ambiguity about the exact output.
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 provides a clear usage condition: 'whenever your task might benefit from specialized capabilities - even if existing tools could work as a fallback.' This tells the agent when to consider this tool, but it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. Still, the guidance is actionable and context-aware.
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 domain tool maps cleanly to a distinct action—informational, purchasing, planning, calendar—and descriptions clarify boundaries. The only mild ambiguity is between the meta tools get-started and get_more_tools, which both touch capability discovery.
Seven of eight tools follow a clear verb-noun kebab-case pattern, making the set predictable. get_more_tools breaks the pattern with an underscore and a less consistent phrase, preventing a perfect score.
At eight tools, the set is well within the ideal range and each tool serves a clear purpose for conference ticket and concierge workflows. The two meta tools are justified for routing and extensibility, so nothing feels padded or missing.
The surface covers the core journey: conference info, availability, purchase, calendar add, role-based planning, and recommendation. Missing explicit cancellation/refund or order-lookup operations, but those are workable gaps, not dead ends.