Check coverage for one provider (locksmith_id) or an area (location: ZIP or city).
Returns whether the area is served, how many vetted providers cover it, and how many
offer 24/7 emergency service. Live availability is confirmed at request_quote — this
does not return a real-time "available now" status, so don't imply one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | No | ||
| locksmith_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Clearly states output (served, vetted providers, 24/7) and explicitly says it does not return real-time status, avoiding misinterpretation.
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?
Four concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds value. No unnecessary 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?
Covers purpose, input modes, output, and limitations. Lacks error handling or edge cases, but for a simple coverage check it is fairly complete given no output schema.
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?
0% schema coverage, so description must compensate. Mentions locksmith_id and location, explains location is ZIP/city, but lacks format details and relationship to other tools. Adequate but not thorough.
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?
Description clearly states it checks coverage for a provider or area, with specific verbs and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like request_quote by noting it does not return real-time availability.
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?
Explicitly tells when not to use (for real-time availability) and directs to request_quote. Could be more explicit about when to use over siblings, but provides key guidance.
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.
Some tools overlap: check_availability and get_eta return nearly identical coverage info, and book_job/request_quote serve similar but distinct purposes. Descriptions help differentiate, but ambiguity remains.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., book_job, check_availability, get_eta), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 6 tools covering search, profile, availability, quotes, and booking, the count is well-scoped for a locksmith finder service without being excessive or insufficient.
Core workflows (search, view profile, check availability, request quote, book) are covered. Missing features like cancel/update bookings are minor but notable gaps.