List venues near a location, marked as bookable or not.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | Yes | City, postcode, or "lat,lng". | |
| vertical | Yes | The vertical (e.g. "movies", "events"). | |
| radius_km | No | Search radius. Default 15 km. | |
| agent_client | No | Optional — name of the calling agent (Claude, ChatGPT, etc.). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description aligns by indicating a read operation. However, it adds no extra behavioral details beyond that.
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 sentence that fits the essential purpose without any 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?
The description omits important context such as the required 'vertical' parameter or the optional radius. It also does not mention the output schema, though that exists separately.
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 explains parameters. The description does not add new semantic meaning to any parameter.
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 lists venues near a location and indicates their bookable status. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'book' or 'search'.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With six sibling tools, explicit usage context is missing.
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 clear, distinct role: discovery (search, search_all, list_verticals, list_venues), options (find_options), booking (book), and user feedback (request_unsupported_booking). No two tools perform the same function.
Some tools follow verb_noun (list_venues, list_verticals, find_options, request_unsupported_booking), while others are single verbs or verb_adverb (book, search, search_all). The inconsistency in pattern may confuse an agent.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a booking discovery service. Each tool covers a necessary step in the user journey without being overwhelming or sparse.
The set covers the core workflow: discover verticals, search, get options, book, and flag unsupported requests. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to view or cancel bookings), but these are beyond the stated purpose.
