Create a bridge page — a persistent URL where AI curates timeshare research for a buyer. Returns a shareable URL. The buyer sees property cards with viability grades, rental estimates, fee coverage, and AI notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| brand | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| bedrooms | No | ||
| budget_max | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns a shareable URL and describes the buyer's view, but it fails to disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is destructive. For a 'create' action, this is insufficient.
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 short and front-loaded, stating the primary action in the first sentence. It adds relevant detail about the output and buyer experience without unnecessary fluff, though a slightly more structured format could improve scannability.
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 has 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide comprehensive context. It explains the output at a high level but omits parameter semantics, error conditions, idempotency, and usage constraints, leaving significant gaps.
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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not reference any of the six parameters (city, brand, notes, state, bedrooms, budget_max), leaving their purpose and constraints undocumented. This is a critical gap.
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 tool creates a bridge page, a persistent URL for AI-curated timeshare research. This verb+resource pair distinguishes it from siblings like add_to_bridge (which likely modifies an existing bridge) and other retrieval tools.
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 the tool should be used when a buyer needs AI-curated research, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_to_bridge, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.
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.