get_bookingLook up a hotel booking by its management token (sent in the confirmation email). Returns the booking status, hotel, dates, and guest details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bookingToken | Yes | The booking management token from the confirmation email/URL. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with description. Description adds that the tool returns booking status, hotel, dates, and guest details, but no further behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.
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?
Single sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Every phrase 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 simple tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, required input, and return fields (status, hotel, dates, guest details). Fully adequate.
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% for the single parameter. Description adds valuable context: 'bookingToken' comes from confirmation email/URL, enhancing the schema's definition.
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 'Look up a hotel booking by its management token' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_my_booking which use user authentication instead of a token.
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?
Description specifies when to use: when you have a management token from confirmation email/URL. Implicitly guides away from tools like get_my_booking when token is available, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.
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, e.g., search vs search_hotels, get_booking vs get_my_booking. No overlapping functionality; descriptions clarify subtle differences.
Most tools follow verb_noun pattern (add_trip_item, cancel_booking) or get_/list_ prefixes. One outlier ('fetch') breaks the pattern slightly, but overall naming is predictable.
18 tools cover the hotel booking domain comprehensively without being excessive. Each tool has a clear role in the workflow from search to booking to modification.
Covers all key lifecycle stages: search, details, rooms, pricing, checkout (standard and one-click), booking management (list, get, cancel, modify), payment methods, and trip saving. No obvious gaps.