get_destination_detailGet full detail for a Tuki destination: description, hero image, related experiences and accommodations, and canonical Tuki URL. Use after list_destinations or when the user asks "tell me about Cochamó".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Destination slug (e.g. "cochamo", "san-pedro-de-atacama"). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the exact data returned (description, hero image, related experiences/accommodations, canonical URL). While it doesn't mention performance or data volume, the combination of annotations and return-value disclosure is sufficient.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the action and scope, the second gives usage guidance. Every clause adds value.
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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage, and return contents. It lacks detail on how related experiences/accommodations are represented (e.g., links vs. summaries), but this is not critical for selecting and invoking the tool 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% and the only parameter (slug) already includes an example and explanation. The description itself does not add parameter-level information, so the baseline of 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?
The description begins with a specific verb+resource ('Get full detail for a Tuki destination') and enumerates the exact contents ('description, hero image, related experiences and accommodations, and canonical Tuki URL'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on destination-level details, as opposed to accommodation- or event-specific detail tools.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use after list_destinations or when the user asks "tell me about Cochamó".' This directly names a related sibling (list_destinations) and gives a concrete example, effectively guiding the agent on tool selection.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource or action: get_* tools retrieve details for specific entity types, search_* tools query specific verticals, and list_* tools enumerate categories. The potential overlap between search_accommodations and search_hotels is explicitly disambiguated in descriptions, and search_unified vs per-vertical searches have clear routing rules.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_*_detail for lookups, search_* for queries, list_* for enumerations, and recommend as the sole one-word but still predictable exception. Naming is uniform with snake_case throughout, making the overall structure highly predictable.
With 23 tools, the server is on the heavier side, but the breadth of verticals (accommodations, cars, events, experiences, hotels, destinations, bus routes, travel guides, solutions) justifies each tool's presence. The number is slightly above the ideal but still well-scoped for a multi-category marketplace.
The tool surface covers the full browsing and recommendation lifecycle: search and list across verticals, retrieve detailed information for any entity, access editorial travel guides, and generate checkout URLs for booking. No critical operations are missing for the server's purpose as a read-only recommendation and conversion layer.