checkAvailabilityBySlugCheck if a coliving has available accommodations using its URL slug instead of ID. Returns available room types with pricing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The coliving URL slug (e.g., 'sun-and-co') | |
| 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) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it checks availability and returns data, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. Adequate for a simple check but lacks depth.
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, zero waste. Every word earns its place. Front-loaded with action 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 no output schema, the description explains return values ('available room types with pricing'). For a simple 4-parameter tool, this covers purpose, input, and output adequately. Missing error context, but sufficient for core functionality.
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 the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the tool's purpose. 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 verb (check), resource (coliving availability), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'using its URL slug instead of ID'. It also mentions the return type (available room types with pricing).
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 when to use this tool versus the sibling 'checkAvailability' (when slug is available instead of ID). It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.
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.