travel-mcp-server

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which already cover the safe read nature. The description adds that it returns specific data fields, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or data freshness. It is consistent with the 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 concise: a one-sentence summary followed by a clear, structured Args block. Every piece of information is useful and not redundant with the schema, making it well-organized and appropriately sized.

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 return values and parameter semantics well. It lacks a few details, such as whether checkin and checkout must be used together or how results are ordered, but given the simple search use case and no output schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 Args section fully explains all four parameters with format, optionality, and defaults. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it excels by providing concrete examples like 'Paris, France' and date format YYYY-MM-DD.

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 'Search Airbnb listings by location' and specifies what it returns (prices, ratings, amenities, host info). This is specific to the Airbnb resource and naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_hotels and search_tripadvisor.

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 gives clear context for usage: it searches Airbnb by location. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the Airbnb-specific naming implies the appropriate use case. No misleading guidance is present.

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 declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's extra notes about return values (prices, ratings, amenities) add some value. It does not disclose deeper behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or result sorting, but for a simple read-only search this is moderate coverage.

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 lines of purpose plus a compact Args block. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and contains no redundant or filler content. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, output content, and parameter meanings. It lacks a detailed return structure, but the mention of prices, ratings, and amenities provides a reasonable baseline. Minor gaps remain around result format or additional constraints.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter. It provides an example for destination ('Tokyo, Japan') and notes the default for max_results (20). This is more than sufficient for the two-parameter input schema.

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 opens with 'Search Booking.com for hotels', which is a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_airbnb and search_tripadvisor. The addition of 'Returns prices, ratings, and amenities' clarifies the output scope.

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 by specifying Booking.com as the search platform, which implies when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use search_airbnb for vacation rentals', so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds scope details but no deeper behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination, or auth requirements, which would be useful but not required given the annotations.

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 plus a compact args list, with the purpose front-loaded. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 search tool with good annotations and only two parameters, the description covers purpose and parameters. It could mention output shape or sorting behavior, but those are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the presence of openWorldHint.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: query with an example and max_results with its default. This adds practical meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 searches TripAdvisor for restaurants, attractions, or hotels with reviews. It specifies the resource and scope, distinguishing it from siblings like search_airbnb, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus search_airbnb or search_hotels. It does not mention exclusions or preferred contexts, such as 'use this for TripAdvisor data' or 'use search_hotels for broader hotel coverage'.

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