check_availabilityCheck whether a product is available for a date range. Returns { available: boolean } plus the echoed dates and product identifiers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | Yes | ISO 8601 end datetime, must be after start_date | |
| product_id | Yes | Product id from search_products | |
| start_date | Yes | ISO 8601 start datetime, e.g. 2026-06-10T10:00:00 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds that the tool returns a boolean plus echoed inputs, clarifying the return structure beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.
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 sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, immediately followed by return format. 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?
Given simple boolean output, no output schema needed. Description fully explains return format, and input schema covers all parameters. Agent has sufficient information for correct invocation.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description does not add additional parameter details beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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?
Description clearly states the tool checks product availability for a date range. Specific verb 'check' and resource 'product availability' with input parameters. Distinguishes from siblings like get_product_details (details) and get_quote (pricing) by focusing solely on availability boolean.
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?
Description implies usage when needing to know availability, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool compared to siblings. No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are provided.
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 have distinct purposes, but get_quote and propose_booking both create Stripe checkout URLs with overlapping functionality, potentially confusing an agent on which to use.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., check_availability, get_pickup_zones, list_categories), making the naming predictable and clear.
With 7 tools, the set covers browsing, searching, quoting, and booking without being overwhelming or too sparse, fitting the rental domain well.
Covers core workflows from discovery to booking initiation, but lacks post-booking management like cancellation or status checks, which is a minor gap for a complete lifecycle.