Get details for a specific hotel booking by its booking ID or confirmation number. Returns hotel name, dates, room type, rate, status, and cancellation policy. Use when a user asks about a booking they've already made (e.g. "what time is my Park Hyatt check-in?").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| booking_id | Yes | The booking ID or confirmation number. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 behavioral value by specifying the exact output fields (hotel name, dates, room type, rate, status, cancellation policy) and confirming that either a booking ID or confirmation number can be used.
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?
Three tight sentences with no filler: the first states the action and scope, the second lists outputs, and the third gives usage context with an example. Every sentence earns its place.
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 single-parameter read-only tool with a full input schema, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description adds exactly the missing context: when to invoke it and what it returns. Nothing essential is omitted.
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%, so the schema already fully documents booking_id. The description repeats the same information rather than adding format examples, constraints, or additional semantics, so it stays at the baseline.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('hotel booking') and clearly differentiates from siblings like get_vehicle_booking and get_booking_link by naming hotel bookings and the lookup key. The listed return fields further pin down exactly what the tool does.
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?
Gives explicit usage context: 'Use when a user asks about a booking they've already made' with a concrete example. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to distinguish this from the booking-link and vehicle-booking siblings.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action; no two tools have overlapping purposes. For example, search_hotels, get_hotel_details, get_hotel_reviews, and get_hotel_stats all address different aspects of hotel research.
Tool names follow consistent patterns: search_ for searches, get_ for retrievals, book_ for bookings, and a few standalone verbs like cancel_, create_, delete_. All use snake_case with no mixing of conventions.
With 31 tools, the server is on the high side but covers a broad domain (hotels, flights, vehicles, loyalty, payments). Most tools are justified, though a few hotel analysis tools could potentially be consolidated.
Hotels and vehicles have near-complete lifecycle coverage (search, details, book, manage), but flights are missing a book_flight tool, and hotel cancellation is not present. These gaps limit completeness.
