List curated editorial guides ("best of" lists) published by this site — ranked places with editorial notes. The best source for "best X in this neighborhood" questions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max guides to return (default 20, max 50). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided and description lacks behavioral details such as authorization requirements, rate limits, order of results, or pagination behavior. The description only states the output is 'ranked places with editorial notes' but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits.
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 clear sentences: first defines the tool, second provides usage context. No unnecessary words and effectively front-loaded.
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?
Tool has low complexity with one optional parameter and no output schema. Description explains what guides are and when to use them. Does not describe return format, but the description is adequate for this simple tool.
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?
Only one parameter (limit) with 100% schema coverage. The schema already describes default and max values. Description does not add additional meaning beyond what's 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?
Description clearly states verb 'list' and resource 'curated editorial guides' with specific context of 'best of' lists and editorial notes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_blog_posts and 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?
Explicitly says 'The best source for "best X in this neighborhood" questions', providing clear context for when to use this tool. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned, but the guidance is effective.
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 action and domain, with clear descriptions preventing confusion. Similar tools like create_booking, request_reservation, reserve_event_tickets, and rsvp_event are differentiated by service type and workflow.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_categories), ensuring predictability and ease of use for agents.
With 28 tools, the set is fairly large but appropriate for a comprehensive neighborhood directory covering multiple domains (places, events, booking, store, forms, etc.). Each tool serves a distinct purpose without redundancy.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of common user needs: search and discovery, detailed info, reservations, purchases, and interactions (forms, FAQs). No obvious gaps for the described purpose of a neighborhood directory.