Google Hotels MCP

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only fetch and discloses pagination, but says nothing about rate limits, cache behavior beyond the schema's no_cache, or what 'full set' means in practice (count, ordering, size). Adequate but thin for a no-annotation tool.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite and pagination following in priority order.

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 4-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, prerequisite, and pagination sufficiently. Only the return shape ('full set of photos' – unknown size/format) is left unaddressed.

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 documents all four parameters, including that property_token must come from a search result. The description restates the same facts rather than adding format, constraints, or edge cases, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Fetch the full set of photos for a single Google Hotels property via SerpAPI.' The mention of property_token from a google_hotels_search result implicitly separates it from the two siblings, though it never explicitly says 'not reviews' or 'not search'.

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 a clear prerequisite (needs property_token from a google_hotels_search result) and the pagination path (next_page_token), which is exactly what an agent needs to sequence calls. It stops short of stating exclusions or when to prefer a sibling, but the context is unambiguous.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Fetch' implies a read-only call, but caching behavior (no_cache), ZeroTrace mode, rate limits, and what the response contains are only documented in the schema or not at all.

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, front-loaded with the core action and the hard prerequisite, followed by the optional knobs. No filler.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should say more about what comes back (review objects plus tokens for subsequent calls) and the caching/ZeroTrace tradeoffs. It covers the call path adequately but leaves the result shape opaque.

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 every parameter is already documented structurally. The description mostly restates that role (filter by category_token/source_number, sort_by, next_page_token) without adding syntax, valid-value, or interaction detail beyond the schema, which is the correct 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 and resource ('Fetch reviews for a single Google Hotels property via SerpAPI') and ties the tool to its sibling by requiring a property_token from a google_hotels_search result. It is clearly distinguishable from google_hotels_photos and google_hotels_search, though the sibling routing is implied rather than stated.

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 a clear precondition (must first obtain a property_token from google_hotels_search) and outlines the optional workflows: filter, sort, paginate. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but there are no competing review tools to disambiguate against.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses live SerpAPI fetching, caching behavior via no_cache, currency defaults, pagination, ads being separate from properties, and the exact difference in response shape when property_token is supplied.

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 front-loaded with purpose, requirements, token workflow, and pagination, which is appropriate for a 27-parameter tool. It is somewhat verbose in enumerating the full result shape and per-property fields even though an output schema exists, but the information is mostly relevant and not padded.

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 complex 27-parameter search tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: required inputs, token-based detail retrieval, pagination, filter ids, currency, caching, and response structure. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds workflow-level meaning beyond the schema for key parameters such as property_token, next_page_token, and reusing brand/property_type/amenity ids from prior responses, though it does not add much for the many filter parameters already documented in the 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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Search Google Hotels live via SerpAPI.' It clearly distinguishes list-search behavior from single-property detail behavior via property_token, and it names the sibling tools google_hotels_photos and google_hotels_reviews for token handoff.

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?

It states required inputs, explains how to paginate with next_page_token, and tells the agent to pass property_token back for full details or to the sibling photo/review tools. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool, but the alternative routing is clear enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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