Get full details for a rental property by its RIN (Rental Identification Number). Returns property info, all platform listings, reviews, license status, and price history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rin | Yes | Rental Identification Number (e.g., RIN-abc123def456) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes what the tool returns (property info, listings, reviews, license status, price history), which is sufficient for a read operation. It does not mention potential side effects or restrictions, but being a read-only lookup, this is adequate.
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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output, with no wasted words or 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains what data is returned and the input required. It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's role among siblings.
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% with a single parameter 'rin' that includes an example. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 applies.
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 explicitly states 'Get full details for a rental property by its RIN' and enumerates the kinds of data returned (property info, listings, reviews, license status, price history), making the purpose clear and distinct from sibling tools that focus on subsets.
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 (retrieve comprehensive property details) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like rental_reviews or rental_price_history for more specific queries.
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.
Most tools target distinct actions, but the presence of both 'search' and 'rental_search' could cause confusion, and 'fetch' overlaps slightly with 'rental_property'. However, descriptions clarify the differences.
While most tools use a 'rental_' prefix, two tools ('fetch', 'search') lack it, and the naming style varies between verb-noun and noun-only (e.g., 'rental_availability' vs 'rental_search'). This inconsistency could confuse an agent.
With 16 tools, the set covers a comprehensive range for a Caribbean rental assistant, including search, property details, pricing, availability, licensing, market intelligence, and session management. Each tool serves a clear purpose.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle (search, view details, create sessions, add picks), but lacks session update/delete functionality. Also, 'fetch' and 'search' seem redundant with rental-focused tools. Overall, the domain is well-covered for an agent workflow.