Find lie detector (polygraph) test offices near a place. Search by city, state/region, or country (United States, Canada, or United Kingdom). Returns each matching office with its address, all-inclusive prices, and a booking link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum offices to return (1-50, default 15). | |
| query | Yes | A city, state/region, or country, e.g. "Miami", "Florida", "London", "Ontario". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds that offices are found with address, prices, and a booking link, complementing the annotations without contradiction.
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 with essential information front-loaded. No extraneous details.
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, the description adequately covers returns (address, prices, booking link). For a search tool with two simple parameters, this is sufficient.
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 describes two parameters with descriptions. The description adds context on allowable search terms (city, state, country) and the default limit, enhancing semantic understanding.
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 finds polygraph test offices near a place, provides search criteria, and lists return fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle booking, pricing, and service info.
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 specifies when to use (find offices) and limits search to specific countries. It does not explicitly exclude other uses but provides clear context.
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 action: find offices, check booking status, get pricing, get service info, and start a booking. No overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., find_offices, get_booking_status).
With 5 tools covering the main booking workflow (search, info, pricing, start, status), the count is well-scoped for the service.
The tools cover the primary booking flow, but lack update or cancel functionality. However, those actions are handled by the person on the website, so the gap is minor.
