get_lounge_detailsGet detailed information about a specific airport lounge by its slug. Returns full description, amenities, access methods, opening hours, capacity, ratings, and reviews count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Lounge slug (from search results or airport lounges) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the exact return content: full description, amenities, access methods, opening hours, capacity, ratings, and reviews count. For a simple read-only getter, this is sufficient behavioral disclosure.
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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the key return fields. Every clause adds useful information and there is no redundancy or 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?
For a single-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, how the parameter is obtained, and what the response will contain. Annotations cover side-effect safety, so nothing essential is missing.
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%: the single parameter 'slug' is documented as coming from search results or airport lounges. The tool description merely says 'by its slug' and adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Get detailed information') and the specific resource ('a specific airport lounge by its slug'). It distinguishes itself from list/search siblings by focusing on one lounge and enumerating the fields returned. The title 'Lounge details' is weak, but the description fully compensates.
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 implies this tool is used after obtaining a lounge slug, which is reinforced by the schema's note that the slug comes from search results or airport lounges. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context of 'specific lounge by slug' makes the appropriate use case clear.
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 or action, and the wishlist/visit/review lifecycles are clearly separated. However, get_my_passport, get_my_profile, and get_my_visits overlap somewhat in stats and visit history, which could cause minor confusion.
All tool names use snake_case and a verb-first structure, which is fairly consistent. The main deviation is mixing get_, list_, search_, find_, and discover_ for read operations, plus discover_more_flight_tools sits outside the domain naming pattern.
21 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but still well-scoped for a server covering lounge discovery, wishlists, visits, reviews, and user profiles. Each tool has a clear place and there is no obvious bloat.
The tool set provides full CRUD coverage for wishlists, visits, and reviews, plus rich lounge discovery by airport, network, access method, and search. A minor gap is that lounge details only show review counts, not the actual reviews from other users.