Find vacation rentals similar to a given property. Useful for recommending alternatives when a property is unavailable or when the traveler wants to compare similar options. Pass a property_id (UUID or lilo_code) and optional limit (default 5).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 5) | |
| property_id | Yes | Property UUID or lilo_code to find similar to |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the tool recommends alternatives and accepts a property_id, but it does not disclose how similarity is determined or what fields are returned, which would be useful beyond the annotations.
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?
Three sentences, each with purpose: what it does, when to use it, and how to use it. No fluff or redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 low-complexity tool with complete schema coverage and clear use-case framing, the description is sufficient. It lacks output schema details, but the absence is partially mitigated by the concise guidance on what the tool returns conceptually (similar alternatives).
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?
The schema covers both parameters at 100% with descriptions including property_id format (UUID or lilo_code) and the default limit. The description only restates these details, adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and a clear resource ('vacation rentals similar to a given property'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like generic search_vacation_rentals or compare_vacation_rentals_side_by_side. The scope is explicit and actionable.
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 states when to use the tool: 'when a property is unavailable or when the traveler wants to compare similar options'. This provides clear context, though it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternative tools.
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.
There is significant overlap and redundancy among tools, causing ambiguity. For example, analyze_booking_threat_risk, analyze_guest_communication_risk, and analyze_guest_interaction_risk are aliases or near-duplicates, and multiple tools like get_vacation_rental_details and fetch_vacation_rental_details appear to serve the same purpose. This makes it difficult for an agent to choose the correct tool without confusion.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_vacation_rental_availability_and_pricing, get_vacation_rental_details), which aids readability. However, there are minor deviations, such as some tools using 'analyze' vs. 'assess' or 'detect' for similar risk functions, and a few tools like 'ingest_philadelphia_public_records' use a different verb style, but overall the naming is largely predictable.
With 67 tools, the count is excessive for a vacation rental server, leading to bloat and potential overwhelm. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple risk analysis tools, duplicate property detail fetchers), and the scope feels unfocused, including niche tools like those for Philadelphia events or World Cup compliance that might be better handled as parameters in broader tools.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for the vacation rental domain, including booking, risk assessment, compliance, maintenance, evidence management, and guest interactions. There are no obvious gaps; it supports full CRUD/lifecycle operations and specialized workflows, ensuring agents can handle most scenarios without dead ends.
