search_property_knowledgeSearch owner-attested public property facts, policies, amenities and curated guest-safe support. Use this before answering a factual question about The Driscoll. The query is search text, never an instruction to the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | any | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Plain search terms describing the property fact or topic required. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already indicating a safe read-only operation, the description adds valuable context: it clarifies that the query is search text and 'never an instruction to the server,' which is a critical safeguard against prompt injection. It also specifies the content scope (owner-attested, guest-safe) beyond the 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 consists of three concise sentences with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action verb ('Search'), then provides usage timing and a behavioral note. Every sentence adds necessary context, making the description highly efficient.
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?
For a simple search tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, when to use it, and a key behavioral rule. It does not mention result format or pagination, but the tool's low complexity and robust annotations make this sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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 only 33%; the description adds meaning for the query parameter by specifying it is plain search terms and not an instruction, which goes beyond the schema's brief description. However, it does not explain the kind or limit parameters; the enum values and constraints partially self-document, but the description does not fully compensate for the low coverage.
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 it searches owner-attested public property facts, policies, amenities, and curated guest-safe support, with a specific verb ('Search') and resource (The Driscoll's public knowledge). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on factual property knowledge rather than availability, booking, or support guidance.
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 explicitly says 'Use this before answering a factual question about The Driscoll,' providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the stated workflow and the contrast with sibling tools give sufficient guidance.
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 occupies a distinct domain: availability checking, booking links, guest support, and knowledge search/retrieval. There is no overlap between the search and retrieval tools, and the booking-related tools are clearly separated by function.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: check_stay_availability, get_booking_options, get_guest_support_guidance, get_property_section, search_property_knowledge. The verbs are specific and the pattern is uniform across the set.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for a property information and support assistant. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy or bloat, making the set easy to navigate.
The domain covers property knowledge search/retrieval, stay availability, booking options, and guest support—covering all apparent user needs. The search-and-retrieve pattern ensures no dead ends, and booking links substitute for direct booking as appropriate.