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?
No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavior. It implies a read-only operation (listing) and notes that FLASH offers have countdowns, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or discuss authorization needs.
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 waste. It front-loads the main purpose and then details return fields.
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 lists the return fields. For a simple list tool with two optional parameters, it covers key aspects, though missing details like pagination or sort order.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds context to the 'kind' parameter by explaining FLASH offers, and repeats the schema's description for 'limit'. This adds marginal value beyond the schema.
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 active promotions and deals in a neighborhood directory, with specific return fields. It distinguishes itself from other list_ tools by focusing on offers, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like list_events or list_products.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose, even among similar actions like booking, reservation, and ticket purchase—their descriptions clarify the domain and flow. No two tools could reasonably be confused.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_blog_posts). There are no deviations or mixed conventions.
At 28 tools, the surface is larger than ideal for a single server, but each tool covers a distinct feature of the neighborhood directory (bookings, events, store, etc.). It borders on heavy but is still manageable for an agent.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of browsing and acting on a neighborhood directory: search, details, reviews, menus, events, booking, reservations, store, loyalty, and more. No obvious gaps exist for the intended use case.