viewings.get_statusRead customer-safe viewing proposals and confirmed viewing state for one email-verified application session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionToken | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | ||
| status | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about scope ('email-verified application session') but does not disclose additional behavioral traits or potential side effects. No contradiction with annotations.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys all necessary information without verbosity. Every word contributes to clarity.
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 an existing output schema (not shown), the description adequately explains the output: viewing proposals and confirmed state. It could briefly mention handling of empty results, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a status-read tool with strong annotations.
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 0%; the description does not explicitly detail the 'sessionToken' parameter. However, the context 'for one email-verified application session' implies the parameter's role. This is adequate but does not add extra value beyond what a thoughtful agent might infer.
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 reads 'customer-safe viewing proposals and confirmed viewing state' for an 'email-verified application session'. This is a specific verb+resource combination that effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'viewings.propose_availability' or 'viewings.respond_to_proposal'.
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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. While it implies usage for checking status, it lacks guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to prefer.
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 is clearly scoped to a distinct action within its domain (applications, viewings, rentals, etc.). Verbs like start, update, submit, create, propose, accept are unambiguous and non-overlapping.
All tools follow a consistent domain_verb pattern in snake_case (e.g., applications.start, rentals.search, viewings.propose_availability). No mixing of styles.
21 tools cover a broad rental lifecycle (discovery, applications, quotes, viewings, payments, contracts). While slightly above the typical 15-tool sweet spot, each tool has a defined purpose and no redundancy.
The lifecycle from rental search to booking confirmation and contract signing is well-covered. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit cancellation or withdrawal tools), but the core flows are complete.