fetchFetch the full record for a result id returned by search (a hotel) or for a booking reference (prefixed 'bk_'). Returns a document with id, title, text, url, and metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | An id from `search` results, or a 'bk_'-prefixed booking ref. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the tool's safety and openness are clear. The description adds context about the return format (id, title, text, url, metadata), which is helpful but does not elaborate on side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.
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 sentences, front-loading the purpose and return format. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is an example of efficient communication.
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?
Given that the tool has a single parameter, annotations for read-only and open-world behavior, and no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields. It lacks information about possible errors or edge cases, but for a simple fetch tool with well-documented input, it is largely complete.
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%, meaning the parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema. The tool description repeats this information (id from search results or bk_-prefixed) without adding new meaning. Since the schema already carries the full burden, the description adds no extra value for this dimension.
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?
Description clearly states the tool fetches a full record for either a search result id (hotel) or a booking reference. The verb 'Fetch' and specific resource types make the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_booking' or 'get_hotel_details', which might overlap in functionality.
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 when to use the tool (when you have a search id or booking ref) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. For a tool that seems to combine hotel and booking fetching, it would benefit from stating that it is a unified alternative to separate tools.
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 action or resource: searching, fetching details, checkout flows, booking management, trips, and payment methods. Overlaps like search vs search_hotels and get_booking vs get_my_booking are differentiated by input type or purpose, avoiding ambiguity.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_trip_item, create_checkout, get_rooms). A few exceptions like `fetch` and `search` lack a verb prefix, but they are still descriptive and fit the overall convention.
With 18 tools, the server covers the full hotel booking lifecycle without overwhelming complexity. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is well-scoped for the domain.
The tool set covers searching, viewing details, booking, checkout, cancellations, modifications, trips, and payment methods. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete_trip or update_payment_method), but the core workflows for booking management are complete.