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?
With no annotations, the description transparently lists return fields (discount label, promo code, CTA link, validity window, business/place) and notes the countdown behavior for FLASH offers. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but for a read-only list tool this is sufficient.
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, front-loaded with purpose. Every word adds value, no 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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values. It covers the key outputs and special behavior for FLASH offers. Complexity is low (2 optional params), so completeness is high. Minor omission: no mention of pagination beyond the limit parameter.
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%, so the description adds limited value beyond schema. It clarifies the FLASH enum value and implies the 'kind' parameter affects return fields, but the schema already provides adequate explanations for both parameters.
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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'active promotions and deals available in this neighborhood directory', specifying the returned fields. It distinguishes FLASH offers as a special subtype, and no sibling tool duplicates this function, making 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 (to see current deals) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. While sibling tools are different, there is no exclusionary language, leaving the agent to infer context.
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 action, with clear boundaries between similar operations (e.g., create_booking vs request_reservation vs reserve_event_tickets). Descriptions provide enough context to avoid confusion.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_events. No mixing of styles or ambiguous verbs.
28 tools is slightly above average but appropriate for a multi-feature neighborhood directory covering bookings, events, movies, menus, forms, etc. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, justifying the count.
The tool set covers most expected operations for a directory site: search, details, reviews, booking, events, menus, blog, FAQ, forms, etc. Minor gaps like cancellation or user booking history are acceptable given the domain scope.