Get detailed information about a specific Philadelphia landmark including full property manifest and Schema.org structured data. Pass landmark_id (e.g., phl-landmark-123) and source type (landmark, religious, aahs).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | No | Data source type | |
| landmark_id | Yes | Landmark ID (e.g., phl-landmark-123) |
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 covered. The description adds that the response includes 'full property manifest and Schema.org structured data' and lists valid source types, providing some return content context, but no deeper behavioral traits such as rate limits or response constraints.
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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, then concise parameter guidance. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition of schema details.
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, read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It mentions return contents (property manifest, Schema.org data) and required parameters. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly note that 'source' is optional (schema declares it not required), which could cause slight confusion, but the schema clarifies this.
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 description coverage is 100%, giving each parameter a description, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing a concrete example ('phl-landmark-123') for landmark_id and clarifying the meaning of source type with its enum values, improving comprehension 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific Philadelphia landmark'), and distinguishes this tool from sibling search tools like 'search_philadelphia_historic_properties' by focusing on retrieving detailed information for a known landmark ID.
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 clearly implies the tool is used when you have a landmark ID and need detailed info, and it explicitly instructs how to pass parameters. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool compared to searching, so it stops short of a 5.
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.
