Get an ETA proxy for a location (ZIP or city).
eta_minutes is null — HireLocksmiths does not pre-list ETAs. The tool returns the
number of vetted providers nearby and whether 24/7 emergency coverage exists (usually
fastest). For a real ETA, call request_quote and the locksmith confirms it directly.
Never invent a number of minutes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description fully carries burden. Discloses that eta_minutes is null, and what the tool returns (vetted providers count, emergency coverage). Warns against inventing numbers.
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?
Short paragraph with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value. 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 no output schema, description explains return values: null eta_minutes, provider count, emergency coverage. Also references sibling tool for completeness. Fully adequate for a simple one-parameter tool.
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 has 0% description coverage but description adds meaning: location should be a ZIP or city. Adds purpose context for the 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?
Clearly states verb+resource: 'Get an ETA proxy for a location'. Distinguishes from sibling request_quote by clarifying that this is not a real ETA but a proxy.
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 to use this tool: to get provider count and emergency coverage info. Tells when not to use: for real ETA, use request_quote. Includes caution 'Never invent a number of minutes'.
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.