Get guest reviews for a specific hotel. Use this to help a user understand what other guests thought about a property — common complaints, recurring praise, recent service issues. Returns up to 10 recent reviews with ratings and comments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hotel_id | Yes | The hotel's Vervotech property ID (from search_hotels results). |
| 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 description correctly aligns with them. It adds beyond the annotations by disclosing the return limit ('up to 10 recent reviews') and the content type ('ratings and comments'), giving useful behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.
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 tight sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded, the use case is clearly stated, and the return limitation is included without any filler or repetition of schema details.
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?
With a single well-described parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering the read-only and non-destructive nature, the description fully covers what an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly. There are no significant gaps.
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 already documents the single parameter hotel_id with 100% coverage, including its type and origin from search_hotels results. The description does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond tying the tool to a specific hotel, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific action ('Get guest reviews') and a clear resource ('for a specific hotel'), and differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_hotel_details and get_hotel_stats by emphasizing guest feedback. It also specifies what is returned, making the tool's role unmistakable.
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 usage context: use this when helping a user understand guest opinions, common complaints, recurring praise, and recent service issues. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, but the use case is concrete enough to guide an agent effectively.
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.
