Searches for hotels, restaurants, or attractions in a given location (geoId). You MUST obtain a valid geoId first using the 'trip_typeahead' tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Optional language code (e.g. 'en_US'). | |
| geoId | Yes | The geographic ID obtained from typeahead. | |
| currency | No | Optional currency code (e.g. 'USD'). | |
| pageToken | No | Optional token for pagination (to fetch next page). | |
| contentType | Yes | The type of listing to search for. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it searches and requires a geoId, but omits important details such as pagination behavior, rate limits, response structure, or what happens with invalid geoIds. This is insufficient for a tool with no output schema.
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 concise, with two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives a mandatory prerequisite. No extraneous information or repetition. The key information is 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?
The description covers the core purpose and prerequisite, but for a tool with five parameters and no output schema, it lacks additional context about expected return values, pagination (despite a pageToken parameter), or how to handle different content types. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for all five parameters, so the description adds little value beyond what is already structured. It mentions geoId but does not elaborate on parameter formats or relationships beyond the schema's existing descriptions. 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 tool's function: searching for hotels, restaurants, or attractions by location. It uses a specific verb ('searches') and resource ('listings'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_details by focusing on discovery rather than retrieval of a specific entity.
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 explicitly instructs the agent to obtain a valid geoId via 'trip_typeahead' before using this tool, providing a clear prerequisite and pointing to the relevant sibling. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a search tool.
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.
While most tools have clear specific purposes, 'get_details' overlaps with 'get_poi_full_about' and could be confused with the more specific getters like 'get_poi_amenities' or 'get_poi_reviews'. The distinction between a generic details endpoint and a detailed metadata profile is not immediately obvious.
The naming convention is mixed: most tools use a 'get_' prefix (get_details, get_media_gallery, get_poi_*), but 'search_listings', 'typeahead', and 'usage_statistic' break that pattern. The verbs are also inconsistent (get vs search vs typeahead), making the set feel less predictable.
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for a travel and POI information service. Each tool serves a distinct purpose in the overall workflow of searching, retrieving details, and viewing ancillary data like media, amenities, and reviews. No tools feel redundant or excessive.
The toolset covers the core needs for exploring Points of Interest: search/typeahead, detailed information, media, amenities, reviews, and API usage stats. A minor gap is the lack of a direct 'get_poi_by_id' function, but 'get_details' likely covers that. The available tools form a coherent workflow without major dead ends.