Get the full profile for one locksmith by id (from search_locksmiths).
Returns name, city/state, services, service-area ZIPs, rating, review count,
verification note, phone, and profile URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locksmith_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It lists return fields but does not mention any side effects, authentication, or rate limits. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not thorough.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the return fields are listed efficiently.
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 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter source, and return fields completely. Nothing essential is missing for this simple 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?
The schema has 0% coverage (no description for the parameter), but the description explains that locksmith_id comes from search_locksmiths, providing meaningful context beyond the schema title.
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 'Get the full profile for one locksmith by id' with a specific verb (Get), resource (profile), and method. It also references the sibling tool search_locksmiths, distinguishing the two.
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 after search_locksmiths by mentioning 'from search_locksmiths', giving context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough.
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.