random_placeOne random place with its full record — deliberately biased toward the little-known long tail, like the site’s own "Surprise me" button. Optionally limit by country and/or kind. Great for discovery and "place of the day" features.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Kind of place — key or slug: ruins (Archaeological), natural (Nature) (optional) | |
| country | No | Country name or ISO code (optional) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the deliberate bias toward the 'little-known long tail' and that it returns the 'full record', which is valuable beyond the obvious random selection. It does not mention potential duplicates or the exact randomness distribution, but these are minor for a read-only discovery tool.
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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence contributes unique value: the first defines the tool, the second explains filters and use cases. 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?
Given the simple schema (2 optional parameters, no output schema or annotations), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, bias, filters, and use cases. A minor gap is the lack of explicit return format, but 'full record' implies the response, making the tool adequately specified.
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 describes both parameters (kind and country) with examples, achieving 100% coverage. The description merely repeats that these are optional limiters, adding no semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool returns 'one random place with its full record', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like search_places and get_place by emphasizing randomness and the 'long tail' bias, making the unique purpose unmistakable.
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 explicitly recommends the tool for discovery and 'place of the day' features, and notes optional filtering by country/kind. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to select it appropriately.
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 targets a distinct query type: single record by slug, aggregate stats, country listing, kind listing, radius search, random selection, name search, and ranked top list. No two tools answer the same question.
Mix of verb-noun (get_place, list_countries, search_places) and noun-phrase tools (random_place, top_places, places_near). 'places_near' breaks the pattern, but all are snake_case and readable.
8 tools is well-scoped for a read-only places atlas; each tool serves a distinct user need with no redundancy.
Covers all expected read-only operations: lookup by identifier, search by name, spatial query, ranking, random, aggregates, and browse by country/kind. No missing lifecycle operations since the domain is read-only.