List active promotions and deals available in this neighborhood directory. Returns discount label, promo code (if any), CTA link, validity window, and which business/place it belongs to. FLASH offers have a countdown deadline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Filter by offer kind. FLASH = time-limited flash sale with countdown. Omit to return all active offers. | |
| limit | No | Max offers to return (default 20, max 60). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses behavior beyond a simple 'list' by noting the return fields (discount label, promo code, CTA link, validity window, business/place) and the special FLASH countdown deadline. This gives the agent useful expectations without needing to see output data. It stops short of discussing read-only status, but the verb 'list' strongly implies it.
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 concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the action and return fields; the second highlights the FLASH nuance. No wordiness or repetition. Every sentence 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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description provides key return fields and a relevant special case (FLASH countdown). The optional parameters are fully explained in the schema. It does not explicitly mention pagination or read-only nature, but these are less critical for a non-destructive list operation.
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 covers both parameters with clear descriptions (kind filter, limit with default/max). The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because full schema coverage means the agent can rely on it.
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?
Clear and specific: 'List active promotions and deals' with a defined scope ('neighborhood directory'). Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_products or list_events by focusing on promotions/deals. Also lists return fields, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 when to use it: when you need active promotions and deals. It clearly states what it returns, so users can infer suitability. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for products, use list_products'), so it lacks explicit 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 targets a distinct resource or action (e.g., create_booking vs create_checkout, reserve_event_tickets vs rsvp_event), and descriptions provide clear boundaries. Even closely related tools like list_booking_services and list_pricing_plans are differentiated by context.
All 26 tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, search_, etc.), with no mixed conventions or vague verbs. This makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.
At 26 tools, the set is on the heavy side and exceeds the typical well-scoped range, but the diversity reflects a multi-featured directory covering bookings, events, store, reviews, forms, and more. Each tool appears to serve a distinct purpose, so the count is borderline rather than excessive.
The surface covers the core user workflows: search, view details, book services, reserve/RSVP events, request reservations, submit forms, and browse content. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no cancellation/update for bookings, no full blog post body), but these are workarounds and not critical for a consumer-facing directory.
