Search Philadelphia event and wedding venues. Returns venue details including capacity, type, availability, and booking information. Filter by venue_type (wedding, event, historic, all) and minimum capacity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Search query | |
| venue_type | No | Venue type filter | |
| capacity_min | No | Minimum capacity requirement |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds some value by listing return fields (capacity, type, availability, booking information), but it doesn't reveal deeper behaviors such as pagination, result limits, or data freshness. This is adequate but not rich context.
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 three concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return details, and filters. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, and there is no unnecessary fluff or repetition.
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?
Given the tool has no output schema, the description reasonably covers the return values (venue details) and parameters. It is complete for a straightforward search tool with optional filters. Minor gaps like pagination or result ordering are not critical for this simple use case.
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 schema provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'Filter by venue_type ... and minimum capacity' mostly restates the schema's parameter descriptions, adding little new semantic meaning. It does not compensate for any gaps because there are none.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search Philadelphia event and wedding venues.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_philadelphia_historic_properties and search_vacation_rentals by focusing on event/wedding venues in a specific city. The return details and filters further reinforce the 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Search Philadelphia event and wedding venues') and mentions specific filtering options. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is sufficiently clear that an agent would know this is the tool for venue searches in Philadelphia.
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.
