Search upcoming restaurant/bar openings in a metro (pre-opening signals from liquor license & permit filings). Returns venues with estimated opening window, owner and evidence trail. Without an API key: the public tier (filings older than 30 days, block-level address, no owner contacts), each with a link to its page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| metro | Yes | ||
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Because there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It excels here by disclosing the behavioral difference in data granularity based on API tier, detailing specifics like 'filings older than 30 days' and 'block-level address' for public access.
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 tool is densely packed with critical information. While slightly lengthy, the structure is front-loaded with the primary function and immediately follows with the critical behavioral caveats regarding tiered data, making every sentence valuable.
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?
The description is very complete for a complex information-gathering tool. It defines the scope (metro-specific openings), the data source (filings), the output content (estimated window, evidence trail), and the key operational limitations (API key tiers and resulting data quality).
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?
Despite providing rich behavioral context, the description adds little semantic value to the structured parameters (limit, metro, status). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should ideally explain what the status enum values (new, approved, etc.) represent, which it fails to do.
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 purpose is stated immediately and specifically: to search for upcoming restaurant/bar openings. It differentiates its data source by mentioning 'pre-opening signals from liquor license & permit filings,' which is highly specific and distinguishes it from general business directory tools.
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 provides crucial usage guidelines regarding operational constraints, specifically linking data quality and scope to the presence or absence of an API key. This sets clear expectations for the user based on their access level.
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.