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, so the description carries the burden. It adds that results are 'ranked places with editorial notes,' but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. Adequate for a read-only listing.
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?
Extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the action and resource, and the second provides usage context. No wasted words.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains what guides are and when to use. Could mention pagination or ordering, 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% for the single parameter 'limit,' which already describes default and max values. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.
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 explicitly states it lists 'curated editorial guides ("best of" lists)' with editorial notes. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for 'best X in this neighborhood' questions, making the purpose very clear.
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 provides usage context by stating it's the best source for 'best X' questions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, which would improve clarity among similar list tools.
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: appointments, products, events, places, menus, reviews, forms, etc. No two tools have overlapping purposes; even similar booking tools (create_booking, request_reservation, reserve_event_tickets, rsvp_event) are clearly differentiated by description and use case.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase with underscores (e.g., create_booking, list_events, search_places). Verbs are appropriate (create, get, list, search, submit, request, reserve, rsvp) and nouns clearly indicate the resource.
28 tools cover a broad domain (neighborhood directory with Wix integrations). While each tool has a clear purpose, the count exceeds the typical 3-15 range slightly, making the surface feel somewhat heavy but still manageable.
The tool surface provides comprehensive coverage for the domain: discovery (search places, list events, list guides), details (get place, get reviews), booking (appointments, restaurant, event tickets, RSVP), checkout, forms, FAQs, loyalty, pricing plans, and more. No obvious dead ends for common user journeys.
