search_availabilitySearch deterministic sample stay options from the Spann Stays fixture; no live inventory or property availability is queried.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stay | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| language | Yes | ||
| destination | No | ||
| guest_count | Yes | ||
| property_id | No | ||
| required_constraints | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already indicating a read-only, idempotent operation, the description adds valuable context by revealing that no live inventory or property availability is queried, and that results are deterministic from a fixture. This goes beyond the annotations and sets correct expectations without contradicting them.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes one clarifying contrasting clause. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.
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?
Despite a moderately complex schema (7 parameters, nested objects, oneOf constraints) and no output schema, the description provides no information about return values, parameter relationships, or the required either/or selection of destination vs property_id. The tool's behavior is underspecified for an agent to invoke it correctly without deeper assumptions.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, placing the burden on the description to explain parameters. The description mentions only 'sample stay options' and does not elaborate on destination, property_id, stay, guest_count, language, limit, or required_constraints. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description provides no additional semantic guidance.
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 'Search' and identifies the resource as 'sample stay options from the Spann Stays fixture.' It explicitly states the tool does not query live inventory, which distinguishes it from potential live-search alternatives. The purpose is clear and well-differentiated.
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 use for deterministic sample data via the phrase 'deterministic sample stay options' and 'fixture,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools or exclude any scenarios. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
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 role: searching availability, explaining constraints, and preparing a reservation action. There is no overlap in their purposes, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.
All tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern: search_availability, explain_booking_constraints, prepare_reservation_action. The naming is consistent and predictable across the entire set.
With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for a fixture-based booking demo. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function within the stated purpose, and the count is appropriate for the server's limited scope.
The server covers the core stages of a booking workflow: searching, understanding constraints, and preparing an action. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit property listing or booking confirmation tools, but given the fixture-based nature, this is an acceptable limitation.