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 are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'ranked places with editorial notes' which gives some insight into the output, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, if there are rate limits, or how the data is ordered. The lack of detail limits transparency.
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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and a usage example. No redundant or irrelevant information is present.
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?
Given the simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and use case. However, it lacks details about the return structure (e.g., list of guides with fields like name, description, ranking), which is important for an agent to understand the tool's output without an output schema.
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 schema describes the single parameter 'limit' with its default and max. The description adds no further semantics, such as the unit or behavior beyond the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 lists curated editorial guides with editorial notes and mentions rankings. It identifies the source as 'published by this site' and provides a concrete use case ('best X in this neighborhood'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_blog_posts or list_products.
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 suggests using the tool for questions about best places in a neighborhood, which implies a usage context. However, it does not specify when not to use it, nor does it mention any alternatives or prerequisites.
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 domain (e.g., bookings, events, places, restaurants, movies, forms) with clear boundaries. Even similar actions like create_booking and request_reservation are differentiated by service type (appointment vs restaurant table) and payment flow.
All 28 tools follow the consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_booking, list_events, search_places). Verbs are appropriate and predictable, with no mixing of conventions.
28 tools is slightly above the typical range, but each tool serves a distinct purpose within the comprehensive neighborhood directory domain. The count is justified by the breadth of features (booking, events, restaurants, movies, etc.).
The tool surface covers most user needs: searching, viewing details, booking, reservations, events, forms, and more. Minor gaps exist, such as no cancellation tools for bookings/reservations, but the core workflows are well-supported.