agoda_activity_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is credential-free and from Agoda's own content source, which is helpful. However, it does not detail potential limitations such as stale data, partial responses, or error behavior for invalid IDs, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, each adding value: purpose, return fields, and data source/credential status. No fluff, though 'Get Agoda activity detail' and 'Returns full activity detail from Agoda' are slightly redundant, so not a perfect 5.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate: it lists return fields and notes the public nature of the data. However, it omits details about response structure, image URL formats, or reliance on a prior search (only in schema), leaving moderate gaps.

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 100%, so the parameter is fully described in the schema as a numeric activity id from a prior search. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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 action ('Get') and the resource ('Agoda activity detail'), and enumerates the specific content returned (title, description, duration, categories, images). It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools like agoda_activities_search by focusing on detail retrieval for a single activity.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that an activity_id from a prior search is required or point to the search tool. The need for a prior search is only implied via the schema's parameter description, not the tool description itself.

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