List solo service-provider profiles on this site — businesses without a fixed physical location (e.g. dog walkers, tutors, personal trainers). Returns name, profile URL, category, and any available metadata (age, height, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max profiles to return (default 50). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description discloses return fields (name, URL, category, metadata) but lacks details on ordering, filtering, pagination behavior beyond limit, or authentication requirements.
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 purpose, no redundant information. Efficient and clear.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers return fields and scope. Could add ordering or missing metadata details, but sufficient for basic use.
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; description adds context about what is listed but does not elaborate on the limit parameter beyond the schema's description.
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 tool lists solo service-provider profiles (businesses without fixed physical location) with examples, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_booking_services or list_events.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the description implies its specific context (solo providers). No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.
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.