Generate tax documentation for short-term rental income. Includes occupancy tax calculations, income summaries, and reporting data for tax filing. Pass host_id (UUID) and year (required). Optional: quarter (1-4) for quarterly reports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | Tax year | |
| host_id | Yes | Host UUID | |
| quarter | No | Quarter (1-4, optional) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'Generate' aligns with mutation. However, the description does not disclose specific side effects, such as whether it overwrites existing documents, requires specific permissions, or is irreversible. It adds content context but falls short of describing operational behavior beyond what annotations already signal.
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, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. The second sentence efficiently clarifies parameter usage. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The description explains the output (occupancy tax calculations, income summaries, reporting data) despite lacking an output schema. It covers parameter requirements and optionality. However, it doesn't mention any preconditions or what the generated document contains structurally. For a simple tool with only 3 simple parameters, this is reasonably complete, but not maximally comprehensive.
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 already describes all three parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds that quarter is for quarterly reports and reinforces requiredness, but doesn't provide additional constraints or formats. It adds minimal value 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 the specific verb 'Generate' with resource 'tax documentation for short-term rental income,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_str_permit_requirements or get_str_insurance_requirements. It enumerates contents (occupancy tax calculations, income summaries, reporting data), making purpose unmistakable.
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?
It states required parameters and optional quarter for quarterly reports, which implies the use case (annual vs quarterly tax filing). However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or state when not to use it. The context is clear though.
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.
