Get complete details for a specific HeySpark-listed business including address, hours, services, reviews summary, and contact information. Premium businesses include photos and special offers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | Business URL slug (e.g., 'bellas-kitchen-asheville') | |
| business_id | No | Business ID (UUID format) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the nuance that premium businesses include photos and special offers, which is useful context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention potential side effects (none expected), authentication requirements, error behavior (e.g., business not found), or whether the tool is read-only. The description is sufficient for a simple lookup but lacks explicit safety guarantees.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get complete details') and then lists the key data categories. No redundant or filler wording is present, and the premium-business addition is valuable without bloating the text.
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 has no output schema, so the description is the primary source for return expectations; it does list the major detail categories. However, it does not clarify that at least one of the two parameters is required (schema marks both as optional), nor does it address edge cases like missing business or error formats. For a details-retrieval tool, it is adequate but has notable gaps in parameter requirements and failure behavior.
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 input schema already provides 100% coverage, documenting both 'slug' and 'business_id' with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning, such as whether the parameters are mutually exclusive, optional, or which one takes precedence. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline 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 clearly states the tool retrieves complete details for a specific HeySpark-listed business, enumerating content areas such as address, hours, services, reviews summary, and contact information. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_businesses (which likely returns summaries) and get_reviews_summary (which focuses on reviews only), making its purpose unambiguous.
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 implies usage for when full details are needed for a specific business, but it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools or state prerequisites (e.g., 'first find the business via search_businesses'). No exclusions or alternative conditions are given, so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.
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: search returns a list, details returns full business info, reviews summary returns rating highlights, and list_categories returns categories. There is no functional overlap between them.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores: get_, list_, search_. The verbs are clear and appropriate for their actions, and naming style is uniform.
With only 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for a local business directory access API. Each tool covers a distinct consumer need and none feel redundant or extraneous.
The core browsing workflow is well covered: search, details, reviews summary, and categories. The only minor gap is the lack of a way to fetch a full list of individual reviews beyond the summary, but this does not seriously hinder common use cases.