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?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what the tool returns but does not discuss side effects, idempotency, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a simple read-only tool with no parameters, the description is adequate but lacks depth on operational context.
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 sentences, both front-loaded with key information. The first sentence lists all returned fields concisely; the second sentence explicitly states use cases. No superfluous words waste the agent's attention.
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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary details: what data is returned (name, locale, domain, description, canonical URLs, local time, weather) and when to use it. No gaps remain for effective agent invocation.
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, so the input schema provides no documentation burden. The description adds no parameter information because none exist. Per rubric, zero parameters means baseline 4, and the description does not detract from this.
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 the tool returns basic info about the neighborhood directory, including specific fields like name, locale, domain, canonical URLs, local time, and current weather. The verb 'Returns' and the clear listing of outputs make the purpose unmistakable, and the inclusion of time and weather distinguishes it from sibling tools that list or search entities.
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?
Description provides explicit use case: 'Use this for any "what time is it there" or "what's the weather like" context.' This gives clear guidance on when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, though the tool's specificity reduces ambiguity.
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 (booking, checkout, availability, events, reviews, etc.). Even similar-looking tools like create_booking, request_reservation, and rsvp_event are clearly differentiated by their descriptions and target systems.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_booking_services). No mixing of conventions or unclear verbs.
28 tools is on the higher end, but the server covers a wide domain (places, events, movies, booking, forms, loyalty, etc.). Each tool serves a clear purpose, so the count is justifiable, though minor trimming could be considered.
The tool set covers most workflows for a neighborhood directory: search, details, booking, events, reviews, etc. Some CRUD operations are missing (no update/delete for bookings), but these are consumer-facing actions where that is acceptable. The domain is well-covered.
