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?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that only 'active' offers are returned, lists the output fields, and notes FLASH offers have countdown deadlines. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention authentication/authorization needs, or describe behavior like sorting, pagination beyond the limit parameter, or error conditions. These omissions leave some behavioral transparency gaps.
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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the primary purpose, the second enumerates the return fields, and the third highlights the FLASH offer special behavior. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies the scope (neighborhood directory), the default return set (active offers), the fields returned, and the special FLASH offer behavior. No critical information appears to be missing for an agent to effectively invoke and interpret results.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (kind and limit) with descriptions. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema; it mentions FLASH offers in the context of countdowns, which is already captured in the kind parameter's description. Thus, the description does not materially enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides, yielding a baseline score of 3.
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's action: 'List active promotions and deals available in this neighborhood directory.' It specifies the resource (promotions/deals) and provides additional detail on what the results include (discount label, promo code, CTA link, validity window, business/place), effectively distinguishing it from sibling listing tools like list_products 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?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool—anytime active promotions/deals in the neighborhood directory are needed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the scope is evident from the content type, which differentiates it from siblings that list other entity types.
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 services, restaurant reservations, event tickets, and RSVPs are all clearly separated by domain and described with explicit use cases. Similarly, search_places, search_dishes, and get_restaurant_menus cover different granularities of place/menu lookup. The descriptions include guidance on when to use each tool, eliminating ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_*, get_*, create_*, search_*). While a few verbs like 'request' and 'rsvp' differ, they accurately reflect the action's semantics and do not break the overall consistency. The naming makes the tool's purpose predictable from its name.
At 28 tools, this is a large set, but it serves a broad multi-domain directory (places, events, movies, store, bookings, content, etc.). Each tool covers a distinct feature or resource, and there are no redundant tools. The count is at the upper boundary but appropriate for the server's comprehensive scope.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for the directory's main domains: search/discover places, view details, menus, reviews, book services, reserve/RSVP events, browse movies/showtimes, list products, access content (blog, guides, FAQs), submit forms, and check loyalty. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose. The inclusion of pairing tools like list_forms→submit_form and get_availability→create_booking shows deliberate workflow completeness.