Search timeshare listings by resort, brand, state, price range, bedrooms, exchange network
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| city | No | ||
| brand | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| resort | No | ||
| bedrooms | No | ||
| exchange | No | ||
| price_max | No | ||
| price_min | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description does not disclose read-only behavior, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. Merely states 'search' without behavioral details.
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?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with key 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?
With 10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, the description is too brief to be complete. Lacks details on output format, ordering, defaults, and parameter constraints.
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 0% and description only partially enumerates search fields (7 of 10 parameters mentioned). Missing specifics for 'q', 'city', 'limit', and data formats (e.g., state code).
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?
Description clearly states 'Search timeshare listings' and lists specific search criteria (resort, brand, state, price range, bedrooms, exchange network), distinguishing from sibling tools like search_complaints.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Siblings exist but are not compared.
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.