Retrieve a business's services, opening hours, timezone, and maximum party size using its slug. Use this first to get essential details before booking.
Look up a business on G-Guest: services, opening hours, timezone and maximum party size. Call this first if you only know the slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Business identifier, e.g. "demo". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a lookup operation and lists what data is retrieved, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or that it is read-only. For a simple lookup this is adequate, though not richly transparent.
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 wasted words. The main purpose and return scope are front-loaded, and the usage hint is appended concisely.
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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and when to call it. It lacks an explicit fallback instruction for when the slug is not known, but the guidance is otherwise sufficient for correct selection and invocation.
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 coverage is 100% and the slug parameter already has a clear description with an example. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Look up'), names the resource ('a business on G-Guest'), and spells out the key data returned (services, opening hours, timezone, maximum party size). It also differentiates from siblings by positioning itself as the lookup to call when you only know the slug.
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 gives clear usage context: 'Call this first if you only know the slug' tells the agent when this tool is the entry point. It does not explicitly name alternatives like search for when the slug is unknown, so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.