List solo service-provider profiles on this site — businesses without a fixed physical location (e.g. dog walkers, tutors, personal trainers). Returns name, profile URL, category, and any available metadata (age, height, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max profiles to return (default 50). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It specifies what is returned (name, URL, category, metadata) and implies read-only behavior via 'List'. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs.
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 two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence defines the purpose with examples, and the second lists return fields. Efficient and well-structured.
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 listing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what is listed, examples, and return fields. Could mention default limit or sorting but not critical.
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 the limit parameter documented. The description adds no additional meaning for the parameter but clarifies the type of profiles being listed, which is not in 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 solo service-provider profiles, defines them as businesses without fixed location, and gives examples (dog walkers, tutors, personal trainers). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_products or list_categories.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implicitly defines the content scope but lacks guidance on context, prerequisites, or when not to use.
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.
All 28 tools have clearly distinct purposes. Overlaps like create_booking vs request_reservation are well-delineated by descriptions: one for appointments with checkout URL, the other for table requests via email confirmation. Similarly, reserve_event_tickets vs rsvp_event, and get_restaurant_menus vs search_dishes are complementary.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_events, search_places). Verbs indicate action type (get/list for retrieval, create/reserve for creation), and nouns are specific entities. No mixing of conventions.
28 tools is above the typical 3-15 range but appropriate for the broad scope of a neighborhood directory with multiple Wix integrations (Bookings, Events, Stores, Reviews, etc.). Each tool covers a distinct feature, and no tool feels redundant.
The tool surface covers the main user workflows: searching places, viewing details and menus, checking availability, making bookings/reservations, and managing event tickets. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update/cancel for bookings, no booking status check), but these are acceptable as the server focuses on initiating actions.