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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of safety disclosure. It does state 'Read-only,' which communicates a non-mutating operation, and it describes the result fields. However, it omits other behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or edge-case behavior, so transparency is only partial.
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 and front-loaded with the key fact that it is a read-only search. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema fields.
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?
While the output schema covers return values, the tool has 8 parameters and no annotation safety net. The description omits crucial context about parameter defaults, the meaning of has_children vs includes_children, and the format of the location object, making it insufficient for reliable invocation in many cases.
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% and there are 8 parameters, but the description only explains the intent of location, query, and date. It does not clarify semantics for limit, party_size, radius_miles, has_children, includes_children, or the location object with additionalProperties of numbers, leaving significant ambiguity.
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 identifies a specific verb ('search'), a resource ('activities'), and the search criteria ('by location/query/date'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing read-only search rather than details, availability, or recommendations, though it does not 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?
The description implies usage: use this tool when you need to find activities by location, query, or date. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_activity_details or get_activity_availability, nor does it mention any exclusions.
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 addresses a distinct concern: search returns a list of activities, details give in-depth information for a single activity, availability checks date-specific capacity, and recommendations suggest complementary products. No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent get_/search_ verb_noun pattern with underscores, making the API predictable. The names clearly indicate the action (get or search) and the resource (activity, recommendation, availability).
With 4 tools, the set is compact and focused on a single domain: read-only activity discovery and planning. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the full read-only lifecycle: search for activities, get details, check availability, and receive complementary recommendations. Since the server is explicitly read-only and booking is handled via external links, there are no obvious gaps.