Returns basic information about this neighborhood directory: name, locale, domain, description, canonical URLs for key sections, plus the current LOCAL TIME and CURRENT WEATHER at the neighborhood (temperature, condition). Use this for any "what time is it there" or "what's the weather like" context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists the returned fields but does not explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation or disclose any side effects. This is adequate for a simple info tool but could be improved.
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, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence provides value without redundancy.
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?
No output schema, but the description lists the returned fields (name, locale, domain, description, canonical URLs, local time, weather). For a simple, parameterless tool, this is complete and leaves no ambiguity.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds context about what is returned, which is sufficient given no parameters to explain.
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 it returns basic information about the neighborhood directory, including specific fields like local time and weather. It distinguishes itself from siblings which are focused on bookings, events, etc.
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 explicitly mentions use cases: 'Use this for any "what time is it there" or "what's the weather like" context.' This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool.
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 and action. Even similar operations like create_booking, request_reservation, reserve_event_tickets, and rsvp_event are clearly differentiated by their descriptions and the entities they handle (bookable services, restaurant tables, paid events, free events). No two tools appear to do the same thing.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_events, search_places). This uniform convention makes the tool set predictable and easy for an agent to understand and select from.
With 28 tools, the set is relatively large, exceeding the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While each tool serves a specific purpose within the neighborhood directory domain, the count feels heavy and may overwhelm simple use cases. A reduction or grouping could improve coherence.
The tool set covers a broad range of user-facing operations for a neighborhood directory: searching places, browsing menus, booking services, reserving tables and event tickets, listing products and events, retrieving reviews and FAQs, and submitting forms. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no cancellation or create_review tool), but the core workflows are well-supported.
