get_serviceGet full details for a specific residential service by its slug. If not found, returns a list of available slugs to help you pick the right one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The URL slug, e.g. "kitchen-remodeling" |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| slug | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| attribution | Yes | ||
| description | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the not-found fallback: it returns a list of available slugs, which is not visible in the annotations or schema.
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 sentences with no filler; the primary action is stated first and the helpful fallback behavior is added as a second sentence. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.
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 single-parameter tool with a rich output schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, how it is identified, and what happens when the slug is not found.
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 fully documents the single 'slug' parameter with a clear example and 100% coverage. The description adds minimal parameter-specific value beyond restating that lookup is by slug, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 specific verb ('Get full details') and resource ('a specific residential service by its slug'), making its purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_services and list_commercial_services by emphasizing 'specific' and 'residential'.
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 clearly conveys that this tool is for retrieving details about one already-identified service, not for browsing or listing services. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_services, but the 'specific... by its slug' phrasing provides clear context for when to use it.
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.
Several permit-related tools have overlapping boundaries: answer_permit_question, check_permit_requirements, and get_permit_rule_details all return timeline/fee/submittal information and can answer 'do I need a permit' style questions. get_material_catalog and get_material_options also target similar material-selection needs. The descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong tool in the permit cluster.
All 36 tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, with get_ for single-item lookups and list_ for collection queries. There are no camelCase or mixed-style exceptions, so the naming is predictable and scannable.
36 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and feels heavy even for a multi-domain construction assistant. Several retrieval tools overlap (list_services/list_projects/list_blog_posts vs search_content, get_material_catalog vs get_material_options), suggesting consolidation opportunities.
The permit workflow is well covered from parcel lookup through requirements, fees, submittals, and data freshness, and the prospect journey has services, estimates, financing, weather, reviews, and contact submission. Minor gaps exist, such as no active permit-status lookup and no way to create/update content, but these are outside the apparent read-only/lead-gen scope.