Search Expedia Stays (hotel) properties for a destination and date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| rooms | No | ||
| adults | No | ||
| locale | No | ||
| check_in | No | ||
| currency | No | ||
| check_out | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| destination | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description only adds the '(hotel)' qualifier and says nothing about result volume, pagination, pricing/currency behavior, or that it queries a live external inventory.
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?
One lean sentence with no filler and the resource plus scoping constraints front-loaded. It is efficient but arguably under-specified rather than concise.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, a 9-parameter search tool with zero schema descriptions, zero required fields, and no usage guidance leaves the agent guessing about defaults and how to narrow results.
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 coverage is 0% for 9 parameters. The description mentions destination and dates but leaves page, page_size, rooms, adults, locale, and currency completely undefined in both schema and prose, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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?
States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Expedia Stays/hotel properties) scoped by destination and date range. It is distinguishable from siblings like expedia_properties_detail or expedia_properties_reviews, but never names them explicitly.
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 phrase 'for a destination and date range' hints at inputs, but there is no statement of when to use this vs expedia_locations_search, expedia_properties_detail, or expedia_properties_filters, and no prerequisites or 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.
