Lodgify MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('Get') but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or data freshness. For a tool with three parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's function, and the subsequent lines clarify parameter meanings. There's no redundant or unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on output format, error conditions, and behavioral traits. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful for reliable agent use.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'property_id' identifies the property, and 'start_date' and 'end_date' define the analysis date range with format 'YYYY-MM-DD'. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail constraints like valid date ranges or property ID formats.

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 purpose: 'Get occupancy summary, average rental rate, and total revenue for a property within a specified date range.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('property'), and outputs (summary, rate, revenue). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_properties' or 'get_property_by_id' beyond the specific metrics it retrieves.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, compare to sibling tools like 'get_bookings' or 'get_calendar', or specify scenarios where this summary is preferred over detailed data. The usage context is implied by the parameters but not explicitly stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.