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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields (name, profile URL, category, metadata) but does not mention pagination, sorting, rate limits, or authentication. It is reasonable for a list operation but not comprehensive.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, no redundant information. 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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does and returns. Missing details like ordering or pagination could be included but are not critical.
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?
Parameter 'limit' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides.
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 solo service-provider profiles without a fixed physical location, with specific examples (dog walkers, tutors, personal trainers). It distinguishes from sibling tools that list other entities (products, events, movies, etc.). The verb 'list' and resource 'profiles' are specific.
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 scope and examples, implying when to use this tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., search_places) for broader searches. The context 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 action and resource: booking appointments, restaurant reservations, event tickets, searches, etc. No two tools have overlapping purposes; even similar actions like create_booking and request_reservation are for different domains (appointments vs. restaurant tables).
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase and underscores (e.g., get_availability, list_events, create_booking). There is no mixing of styles like camelCase or inconsistent verbs.
28 tools is above the typical well-scoped range but each tool serves a clear purpose within the comprehensive neighborhood directory domain. The count feels justified, though slightly heavy.
The tool set covers most major features of a neighborhood directory: places, events, booking, restaurant menus, reviews, forms, etc. Minor gaps exist, such as no create_review or update operations, but core workflows are complete.