agoda_hotel_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the data is 'Credential-free public data from Agoda's own hotel content source,' which is valuable context about authentication and source. It also enumerates the exact content returned, giving the agent a clear picture of the operation's behavior and scope, though it doesn't describe error cases or edge behaviors.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that lists the main return fields in a structured, parenthetical format. It is somewhat long due to the detailed field list, but every element provides useful information and the structure is clean, meriting a 4 rather than 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing the fields to be returned, including policy statements. It also clarifies the data source and credential-free nature. It doesn't cover failure modes or when property_id might be invalid, but for a simple detail endpoint with one parameter, this is sufficiently complete.

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 schema covers the single parameter fully with a description explaining property_id is a numeric ID from a prior search or URL. The tool description itself does not add further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get Agoda hotel detail.' It enumerates the exact types of data returned (identity, address, rating, photo, room count, chain, descriptions, policies), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like agoda_activity_detail or agoda_homes_search. The title matches the scope precisely.

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 context by stating it returns hotel detail and the schema notes the property_id comes from a prior search call, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer this tool over agoda_hotels_search or other detail tools. There is no direct exclusion of activities or homes, leaving guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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