get_faqAll customer FAQs: what SOMA is, ABV and trace alcohol, brewing method, styles, pricing, delivery, age policy, comparisons to other NA beers, subscriptions, recycling, and wholesale.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only lists topics. It lacks disclosure of read-only nature, auth requirements, or return format. Assumes safe use but provides no behavioral context.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key phrase 'All customer FAQs'. Efficiently lists topics without extra filler, but could be broken into bullet points for clarity.
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?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is the sole source of information. It covers content but not format (e.g., list of Q&A pairs) or how to use it for specific queries. Adequate but not rich.
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by detailing the FAQ content areas, which compensates for the lack of schema.
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 that the tool returns all customer FAQs and lists specific topics (SOMA, ABV, etc.), making it distinct from sibling tools that focus on single aspects. However, it does not explicitly state the verb 'get' or 'retrieve', though it's implied.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus specialized siblings like get_pricing_and_delivery or get_brewing_process. The description does not mention that this is a general overview and that specific tools provide more detail.
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 clearly distinct purpose covering different aspects: beers, brand, process, pricing, nutrition, recipes, subscriptions, wallet, wholesale, buy link, and waitlist. No two tools overlap significantly.
Most tools use the 'get_' prefix for information retrieval, with 'list_beers' and 'join_waitlist' as slight deviations. However, the pattern is consistent (verb_noun with underscores) and clear.
13 tools is well-scoped for a brewery server, covering all essential aspects without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a specific need, and none feel superfluous.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: brand info, product details, pricing, ordering, subscriptions, waitlist, wallet, and even recipes and nutrition. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.