Read-only search for activities by location/query/date. Each result includes booking_link, thumbnail_url, group_size, and a standardized item_card.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| location | No | ||
| party_size | No | ||
| has_children | No | ||
| radius_miles | No | ||
| includes_children | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'Read-only' which signals a non-destructive operation, and it mentions result fields (booking_link, thumbnail_url, group_size, item_card). However, it does not explain pagination, ranking, rate limits, or how the read-only nature is enforced. This is a minimal viable 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 two succinct sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key output fields. No fluff or redundancy; every word contributes.
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 an output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully contextual. It does not explain how the location object works, what 'item_card' summarizes, or how this search relates to complementary recommendations. The description would be more complete with a sentence about additional filters and typical usage.
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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only mentions location/query/date, leaving limit, party_size, has_children, radius_miles, and includes_children unexplained. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify how they interact or that they are additional filters, creating a significant semantic gap.
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 'Read-only search for activities by location/query/date' – a specific verb (search) with a resource (activities) and scope (filters). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_activity_details or get_activity_availability, which are more focused on specific lookups.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to search activities by location, query, or date. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the phrasing 'search' vs siblings' 'get' implies a distinction.
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 serves a distinct purpose: search for discovery, details for a specific product, availability for date checking, and complementary recommendations for cross-sell. The descriptions clearly delineate boundaries, with no overlapping functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_activity_availability, get_activity_details, get_complementary_recommendation, search_activities). This creates a predictable and intuitive API surface.
Four tools is well-scoped for a read-only experiences discovery and information service. Each tool is necessary and non-redundant, covering search, details, availability, and recommendations without unnecessary bloat.
For a read-only API, the tool set covers the full guest journey: searching activities, viewing detailed eligibility rules, checking availability, and accessing complementary suggestions. The inclusion of booking_link and standardized item_card ensures agents have all needed information for recommendations, with no obvious gaps.