Get complete details for a vacation rental property including name, location, address, property type, bedrooms, bathrooms, nightly rate, amenities, house rules, photos, protection status, and host reputation score. Use the property_id (UUID) or lilo_code (e.g. PROP-2343) to identify the property.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| property_id | Yes | Property UUID or lilo_code |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The read-only behavior is already disclosed by annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds context about the content returned (amenities, photos, protection status, etc.) but does not go beyond annotations in terms of side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits.
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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by a succinct parameter usage note. Every word earns its place with no redundant information.
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 lists the key return fields (name, location, address, nightly rate, etc.), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. It also covers the identifier input format. It does not mention error behavior or pagination, but for a single-object retrieval with one parameter, it is adequately complete.
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 input schema already describes property_id as 'Property UUID or lilo_code', but the description adds a concrete example ('PROP-2343') and clarifies that the parameter can accept either format, which is valuable beyond the raw 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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('vacation rental property'), and enumerates the fields returned. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'fetch_vacation_rental_details', which appears to serve a nearly identical purpose.
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 implies usage for retrieving complete rental details and clearly explains how to identify the property (property_id or lilo_code). However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'fetch_vacation_rental_details' or more specialized getter tools (e.g., 'get_vacation_rental_house_rules').
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.
