drives_vehicle_availabilityGet a monthly availability calendar with daily rates for a vehicle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Four-digit year; defaults to current year | |
| month | No | Month number (1-12); defaults to current month | |
| asset_rental_id | Yes | Rental asset ID from search or detail results |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds minimal behavioral context (monthly, daily rates) beyond annotations, but does not mention response structure or edge cases.
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?
Single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the key verb and resource, 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?
Given no output schema, the description could better describe the return format (e.g., list of days with rates). It is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the purpose but adds no new semantic detail beyond what schema provides for parameters.
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 verb 'Get', the resource 'monthly availability calendar with daily rates', and the target 'a vehicle', distinguishing it from sibling tools like drives_vehicle_detail or drives_get_quote.
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 implies usage for obtaining availability calendars but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.
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 aspect of the rental process: searching by location, vehicles, airports, venues; getting details, availability, reviews, quotes; and host profiles. No two tools overlap in purpose, ensuring clear agent selection.
All tools share the 'drives_' prefix and use snake_case, but the word order varies: some follow verb_noun (drives_get_quote, drives_search_vehicles), others noun_verb (drives_airport_search, drives_location_suggest), and some are noun_noun (drives_vehicle_availability, drives_host_showroom). This inconsistency makes the pattern less predictable.
With 9 tools, the server covers essential rental marketplace operations without excess. Each tool serves a clear role, and the count is well-scoped for its domain.
The tool set comprehensively covers browsing, searching, quoting, and reviewing vehicles, plus location and venue queries. A minor gap is the absence of a tool to create or manage bookings, but the server likely focuses on pre-booking information.