Get insurance requirements and recommendations for short-term rental hosts by state. Returns liability minimums, STR-specific coverage options, and recommended policy limits based on property type and estimated revenue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | State code | |
| property_type | No | Property type | |
| estimated_revenue | No | Estimated annual revenue |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that returns vary based on property type and estimated revenue, and lists specific return elements. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Get insurance requirements') and then expands on the return value. No filler or 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 read-only lookup tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it returns and what factors influence results. It could mention limitations or data sources but is broadly complete for an agent to select and invoke it.
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?
All parameters have schema descriptions, giving baseline 3. The description adds meaning by linking 'property type' and 'estimated revenue' to the recommended policy limits, clarifying their role in tailoring the output. This enriches the parameter semantics.
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 it retrieves insurance requirements and recommendations for short-term rental hosts by state, listing specific outputs like liability minimums and policy limits. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on permits, regulations, or tax.
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 usage is implied: use this when you need insurance requirements for STRs. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like check_str_permit_requirements or get_short_term_rental_regulations, which cover adjacent but distinct topics.
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.
