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 carries full burden. It describes the output as ranked places with editorial notes, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The name 'list_guides' and verb 'List' strongly suggest safety, but more explicit disclosure would improve 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 sentences with no wasted words. The action ('List curated editorial guides') is front-loaded, and the use case sentence adds value. Every part earns its place.
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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the type of data returned (guides with ranked places and editorial notes). However, it lacks details on the structure of each guide, pagination (only limit, no offset), and whether ordering is fixed. Without output schema, more context on the return format would improve completeness.
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', with adequate schema description ('Max guides to return (default 20, max 50).'). The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the coverage.
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 ('best of' lists) with ranked places and editorial notes, and provides a specific use case ('best X in this neighborhood' questions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_blog_posts or search_places.
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 implicitly guides when to use (for curated 'best of' lists and neighborhood questions) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. It is clear but lacks exclusions.
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 operation: bookings, restaurants, events, forms, etc. Even similar actions like create_booking and request_reservation are clearly differentiated by domain and description.
Tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_blog_posts). Collection retrieval uses list_ while single item uses get_, which is a standard and clear convention.
28 tools is on the upper end, but each serves a distinct function for a comprehensive neighborhood directory (places, events, booking, forms, etc.). No obvious bloat given the scope.
The tool surface covers all major user intents for a local directory: searching places, getting menus, booking services, viewing events, submitting forms, etc. No critical gaps are apparent.