checkAvailabilityCheck if a coliving has available accommodations for a specific date range and number of guests. Returns available room types with pricing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guests | No | Number of guests | |
| endDate | Yes | Check-out date in ISO 8601 format (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| startDate | Yes | Check-in date in ISO 8601 format (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| colivingId | Yes | The coliving ID to check availability for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns available room types with pricing, which is helpful, but lacks details on error handling, behavior when no availability, or any side effects. Given it's a read-only query, this is adequate but not outstanding.
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 two sentences long, front-loads the main purpose, and contains zero wasted words. It is concise and to the point.
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 does a good job explaining the return value (room types with pricing). It covers the main input parameters. Could be improved by mentioning whether results are sorted or paginated, but overall complete for a simple query tool.
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%, so parameters are well-described in the schema. The description reiterates the date range and guests but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 checks availability for a coliving given date range and guest count, and mentions it returns room types with pricing. It distinguishes from siblings like checkAvailabilityBySlug and getAvailabilityByMonth by specifying the parameters (colivingId, date range, guests) and output.
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 checking availability by coliving ID, date range, and guests, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like checkAvailabilityBySlug, or provide exclusions (e.g., not for searching by slug).
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: search by different criteria, get details, check availability, list categories. The only potential overlap (checkAvailability vs checkAvailabilityBySlug) is differentiated by input type (ID vs slug), which is a reasonable distinction.
All tools follow a consistent camelCase pattern with lowercased verbs followed by nouns (e.g., checkAvailability, getColivingsByBudget). No mixing of conventions (e.g., snake_case, PascalCase) is present.
With 14 tools, the server covers the core operations for a coliving discovery platform: searching by multiple filters, viewing details, checking availability, and accessing metadata. The count feels well-scoped without being overwhelming or sparse.
The tool surface covers the main user journeys: discovering colivings via various criteria, getting detailed information, checking availability, and reading reviews. Minor gaps include the lack of combined filtering (e.g., country + budget) and no booking tool, but these are likely outside the intended read-only scope.