Add a listing to a bridge page by listing ID. The property appears on the buyer page with full economics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | Bridge session hash | |
| notes | No | AI analysis note for the buyer | |
| score | No | AI fit score 1-10 | |
| listing_id | Yes | Listing ID from search results |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only mentions that the property 'appears on the buyer page.' It does not disclose side effects, mutability, idempotency, or permissions needed, leaving significant behavioral aspects unclear.
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 concise sentences with no padding. Every word serves a purpose, efficiently communicating core functionality and outcome.
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 tool with no output schema and few parameters, the description covers the basic goal but omits details like whether adding multiple times is allowed, error conditions, or the nature of 'full economics.' It is adequate but incomplete.
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 the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'listing ID' but this is already documented. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as no extra meaning is conveyed.
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 action 'Add a listing to a bridge page' using a specific identifier (listing_id) and explains the outcome 'appears on the buyer page with full economics,' effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_bridge or get_listing.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description implies the need for a bridge session hash and listing ID but fails to provide context for appropriate usage.
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 targets a distinct data source or action: search tools query different databases (listings, complaints, FL DBPR projects), get tools retrieve specific entities (listing, resort, payment history), list tools aggregate brands/resorts, and bridge tools handle curation. There is no overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case: add_to_bridge, create_bridge, get_listing, get_orientation, get_payment_history, get_resort, get_stats, list_brands, list_resorts, search_complaints, search_dbpr_projects, search_timeshares. The pattern is predictable and clear.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for a timeshare research and bridge curation domain. It covers multiple data sources (listings, complaints, FL DBPR, stats) and actions (search, get, list, create, add) without being excessive or too sparse.
The tool set covers core workflows: orientation, searching, viewing details, complaints, registration, and bridge creation. Minor gaps exist: there is no tool to remove listings from bridges or to list existing bridges, and no update/delete for listings (though likely out of scope). Overall, the surface is largely complete for the intended use.