agoda_hotels_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that this is 'credential-free public data' from Agoda's own hotel search, indicating no authentication is needed and clarifying the data source. It also discloses the return contents (matching property ids and direct links). It omits details like pagination behavior or rate limits, but for a search tool, the key safety and access traits are well covered.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then efficient elaboration on inputs and data source. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, return shape, parameter flexibility, and authentication requirements. It could add more detail about the structure of the returned result set (e.g., pagination metadata), but for a search tool this is a solid level of contextual completeness.

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 schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal semantic value by restating the precedence rule for city_id over city and noting that at least one is required. This is helpful but largely redundant with the schema descriptions, so the baseline 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 tool searches Agoda hotels by city and specifies the exact output: matching property ids and direct listing-page links. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like agoda_hotel_detail (single hotel details) and agoda_homes_search (different property type) by focusing on hotel search scoped to a city.

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 clear context on how to use the tool: callers can supply either a numeric city id or a free-text city name, with city_id taking precedence. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions (e.g., 'use agoda_hotel_detail for a specific property'), so it falls short of a 5, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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