get_regionsList available camping/accommodation regions, optionally filtered by state. Returns region names with entity counts. Use this when the user wants to browse by area or doesn't have a specific location.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | Filter regions by state (e.g. 'NSW') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds return format ('Returns region names with entity counts') and the optional state filter, which goes beyond the annotations but not extensively. No contradictions.
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 action, and every clause earns its place. No fluff or redundancy.
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 covers purpose, usage context, and return content, making it fully self-contained. No additional details are needed.
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%, with the state parameter already having a description and enum. The description merely reiterates 'optionally filtered by state' without adding new semantic detail, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('camping/accommodation regions'), while also stating optional filtering and return content. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_campsites or get_campsite_details.
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?
Provides clear when-to-use context: 'Use this when the user wants to browse by area or doesn't have a specific location.' This gives a strong usage signal, though it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, missing the full top score.
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: bk_* for Bookeasy booking workflows (add, checkout, guest, promo, search operators/content), get_* for retrieval, search_* for different domains (campsites, campervans, products), and find_nearest_toilets and recommend_gear for specific niche queries. No significant overlap.
Naming follows a consistent pattern: bk_ prefix for Bookeasy tools, then verb_noun (e.g., bk_cart_add, bk_search_operators). Non-bk tools use get_ or search_ prefixes. All snake_case, predictable and clear.
18 tools cover a broad scope (accommodation search, campervan rental, public toilets, weather, gear, products, and full booking lifecycle) without bloat. Each tool earns its place; the count is well-scoped for the domain.
The tool set covers most user needs: listing, searching, booking, weather, gear, product sales. Minor gaps (e.g., no tool for cancelling/viewing past bookings) but these are likely handled externally via the booking platform. The core workflows are well-supported.