Florida events currently published on VenuMark and taking food vendor applications. Optional city filter. Each result includes the application deadline, required documents, and the public apply_url where a vendor applies (free account).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | Optional Florida city filter, e.g. TAMPA |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the list scope and result fields, but omits read-only indication, auth requirements, or behavior edge cases (no results, pagination). Acceptable but not fully transparent.
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 description is concise (two sentences) and packs key information without fluff. Slightly more structured formatting could improve scannability.
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?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: source, scope, what results contain. Missing guidance on result format but 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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the city parameter. The description adds the 'Florida' context but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema.
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 lists Florida events from VenuMark that are currently accepting food vendor applications, with optional city filter. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_event (single event) and search (generic).
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 use when needing open vendor events, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor compare to alternatives like search_vendors or get_event.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: vendor search, scorecard retrieval, checking improvement, event listing, checklist retrieval, platform info, signup link, and vendor decision. Aliases (fetch/search) are explicitly described as shortcuts, not overlapping tools.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_scorecard, list_open_events). The aliases 'fetch' and 'search' break this pattern but are clearly documented as alternatives for specific connectors, not primary tool names.
12 tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose: covering vendor search, scorecard, decision, events, checklists, and platform setup. Each tool serves a necessary function without bloat.
The tool set covers core workflows: vendor discovery, compliance checking, checklist guidance, and event information. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for submitting vendor applications, but that is handled via web app links).
