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?
The description mentions what is returned (name, profile URL, category, metadata) but does not discuss pagination behavior (though limit parameter implies it), authentication requirements, or other side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and is moderately transparent.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, provides examples, and includes return information. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
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 explains the resource and return fields. It could mention default limit or sorting, but the schema covers the limit default. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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 single parameter 'limit' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add additional information about the parameter, so baseline score 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 that the tool lists solo service-provider profiles (businesses without fixed physical location), provides examples (dog walkers, tutors), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_booking_services which likely list different 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?
The description defines the scope (solo service-providers without physical location) but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool relative to alternatives like list_booking_services or list_categories.
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.