Generate a Google Vacation Rentals XML feed for a host's properties. Enables direct booking via Google Search results with a 3% guest service fee. Pass host_id (UUID) and optional format (xml or json, default xml).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Output format: xml or json (default xml) | |
| host_id | Yes | Host UUID to generate feed for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the description should clarify what side effects occur (e.g., overwriting existing feeds, triggering external changes). The description only mentions benefits (direct booking, 3% fee) and parameters, with no explanation of the destructive nature. It misses the opportunity to elaborate on the mutation's impact.
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, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. The second sentence adds purpose-related context (booking, fee) and parameter instructions. Every word contributes useful information with no redundancy.
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 2-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers purpose and invocation. However, it does not explain what the function returns (e.g., feed content, success status) or what the destructive side effect entails, leaving gaps given the absence of an output schema and a destructive hint.
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% with both parameters described in the schema. The description restates the parameters (host_id UUID, format xml/json default xml) but adds no meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents each parameter fully.
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?
States exactly what it does: 'Generate a Google Vacation Rentals XML feed for a host's properties.' The verb 'generate' plus the specific resource 'Google Vacation Rentals feed' and target 'host's properties' make the purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which generate feeds.
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 context: use when you need to create a Google Vacation Rentals feed for a host. It clarifies the target scope ('for a host's properties') and parameter requirements. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference alternatives, though no direct sibling competitor exists.
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.
