search_nc_wedding_directorySearch nearly 4,000 North Carolina wedding venues and vendors by category, city, or free text. Returns canonical listing URLs and structured planning details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | North Carolina city or area, such as Raleigh or Asheville | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Style, service, amenity, business name, or other keywords | |
| offset | No | ||
| category | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating what the tool returns: 'canonical listing URLs and structured planning details.' This gives the agent a concrete expectation of output without contradicting the annotations.
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 no filler. The scope is front-loaded ('Search nearly 4,000...'), and the return behavior is stated immediately afterward. Every word earns its place.
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 read-only search tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states the resource, search dimensions, and return type. It could add pagination semantics or explicit sibling differentiation, but the annotations plus the return-value sentence cover most of what an agent needs to invoke it correctly.
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 description coverage is only 40%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that city, category, and query are search dimensions and interprets query as 'free text,' but it says nothing about limit or offset and does not elaborate on category enum values. It partially compensates but leaves part of the parameter surface undocumented.
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 uses a specific verb ('search'), a concrete resource ('North Carolina wedding venues and vendors'), and a scope ('nearly 4,000'). It clearly conveys a directory-listing function, and the phrase 'canonical listing URLs' helps separate it from the budget/legal siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_nc_wedding_vendor.
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 phrase 'by category, city, or free text' implies the intended search scenarios, and the sibling names suggest alternatives for budget, cost, licenses, and contact requests. However, the description never states when to prefer this tool over get_nc_wedding_vendor or request_vendor_contact, nor does it give exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.
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 covers a distinct step: budgeting, venue cost estimation, vendor discovery and detail retrieval, marriage license lookup, and vendor contact. Even though search and get both involve vendors, one is for discovery while the other fetches a specific listing's details.
All tool names use a verb-first snake_case format and most include an NC wedding qualifier, such as build_nc_wedding_budget and search_nc_wedding_directory. The one exception, request_vendor_contact, still follows the same verb_noun pattern, so there is no meaningful convention break.
Six tools is a well-scoped size for a wedding planning guide. Each tool addresses a necessary planning action without unnecessary redundancy or expansion.
The toolset covers the core wedding planning workflow: budget creation, venue cost estimation, vendor discovery and detail retrieval, vendor contact, and marriage license rules. There are no obvious dead ends since search leads to get, and get leads to contact.