agoda_activities_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral nuances: keyword fallback to resolved city name, city_id precedence, and credential-free public data sourcing. It stops short of describing pagination or result format, but for a search tool this is notably transparent.

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?

Four sentences, each packed with distinct information. Front-loaded verb and resource, no fluff, and the fallback/precedence rules are stated compactly without repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the main invocation patterns and parameter interactions. It could mention result structure or limits, but the core selection criteria are well addressed.

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 already covers all three parameters with descriptions, but the description adds meaningful behavioral semantics: how keyword omission triggers city-name search, and the city_id > city precedence rule. This goes beyond simple parameter mapping.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search Agoda activities' and clarifies the result type as 'tours, attractions, experiences'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling agoda_activity_detail (which retrieves a single activity) and other Agoda search tools.

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?

Provides clear usage context: can search by keyword and/or city, fallback to city name when keyword is omitted, and city_id precedence over city. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it misses the top tier for explicit exclusions.

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