Отправить заявку на консультацию/заказ дилеру Laguna Pools. Клиент получит обратный звонок
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | Город | |
| name | Yes | Имя клиента | |
| phone | Yes | Телефон клиента | |
| message | No | Комментарий (модель, комплектация, вопросы) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the client will receive a callback. However, it does not mention other side effects, data handling, or failure modes.
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 two short sentences, both essential: one states the action, the other the consequence. 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?
For a simple lead-form tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It states the purpose and the resulting callback, which covers the key user expectation.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics but doesn't need to.
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 specifies the verb 'submit' and the resource 'lead request to Laguna Pools dealer' for consultation/order. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on calculations, lookups, or sending emails.
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 implies this tool is for submitting a request that results in a callback, providing context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling list.
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 tools have overlapping purposes: get_architect_package and get_bim_files both provide BIM/CAD resources, generate_kp and calculate_total both compute pricing, and search_pools and recommend_pool both guide pool selection. The detailed descriptions help differentiate them, but the boundaries are not always crisp.
Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_price, send_email, search_pools). Minor deviations like tech_consult (adjective-noun) and consult_service (verb then noun, but technically 'consult' is the verb) are slight outliers, but the overall convention is consistent and readable.
With 21 tools, the server sits in the heavy range. While the domain is broad (product info, quotes, consultations, catalogs, architectural resources), several get_* catalog tools (filters, accessories, furniture, slides) could potentially be consolidated, and list_tools adds little functional value. The count is borderline appropriate.
The tool surface covers the main sales flow (search, recommend, specs, pricing, quote generation/email, dealer lookup, lead submission) plus post-sale support (service consultation, repair services, pool passport, technical consultation). Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for scheduling maintenance or tracking lead status, but the core domain is well covered.