Booking.com Remote MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating what is returned (identity, policies, price, rating, photos, room suites) and noting prices/availability are real-time, though it says nothing about auth, rate limits, or error cases.

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 opening line 'Get Booking Hotel Details' merely restates the title and is wasted space. The remainder is a dense but informative sentence followed by a use-case list; it is not bloated, but the redundant lead-in and heavy enumeration keep it from being tightly front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly (identity, policies, price, rating, photos, room suites). For a read-only detail endpoint it is essentially complete, missing only error/failure behavior.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description restates the stay-date and guest-composition inputs but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (fetches) and resource (a single Booking.com property by full URL), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search endpoint by describing this as the 'fetch full details after discovering the property URL via the Booking Search endpoint' step.

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?

Gives four concrete use cases (enrich listings, monitor a competitor, validate amenities/photos, fetch details after search) and names the discovery-then-detail workflow with the sibling tool. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: page-based pagination at 25 results/page, plus a detailed return-shape summary (price semantics, rating, policies, photo) that compensates for the absent output schema. It omits rate limits and auth requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads purpose in the opening line and wastes little, but the body is a single dense run-on sentence enumerating filters and return fields, some of which restate the schema. Efficient overall, with mild redundancy in the return-field list.

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 28-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting: it outlines the filter dimensions and describes the returned hotel fields, so an agent knows what comes back. Only operational details like error behavior or rate limits are missing, which is a minor gap.

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%, so the schema already documents all 28 parameters including pagination, locale, price bounds and child ages. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Searches Booking.com for accommodations') and enumerates the scope precisely (destination keyword, stay dates, guest composition, rich filter list, pagination, locale). It also names the sibling endpoint it feeds into (`hotelId`/URL into Booking Place), so an agent can distinguish search from place-details without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names target scenarios (travel-planning agents, OTA price/inventory monitoring, competitor analysis, lead-gen) and routes to the sibling when full property details are needed. It stops short of stating exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. valid date/guest constraints beyond what the schema enforces), so it is clear context rather than a complete routing rule.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.