viewings.propose_availabilityPropose one to five bounded future viewing slots from an email-verified application at its exact version using a durable idempotency key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slots | Yes | ||
| sessionToken | Yes | ||
| idempotencyKey | Yes | ||
| expectedVersion | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | ||
| status | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide idempotentHint, non-readOnly, non-destructive. The description adds context: prerequisites (email-verified application), version requirement (exact version), and time constraint (bounded future). 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?
Single sentence, 23 words, packs all essential information without waste. Front-loaded with action verb and resource.
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 the 4 required parameters and existence of an output schema, the description covers the core constraints and prerequisites. Could mention that slots must be in the future, but 'bounded future' suffices. Overall adequate.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains each parameter's purpose: 'one to five slots' maps to `slots`, 'email-verified application' implies `sessionToken`, 'exact version' maps to `expectedVersion`, and 'durable idempotency key' maps to `idempotencyKey`. It adds high-level meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.
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 'Propose' and resource 'viewing availability', and includes constraints (one to five, bounded future, email-verified, exact version, idempotency key) that distinguish it from siblings like viewings.respond_to_proposal and viewings.get_status.
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 the tool is for proposing availability but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to choose instead.
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.