Retrieve a Booking.com attraction detail page by slug to view complete information for a specific attraction from prior search results.
Booking.com attraction detail. Returns a Booking.com attraction's detail page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Attraction slug, from a prior attraction search result |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'returns a detail page' but gives no information about read-only behavior, response structure, or what data will be present. For a lookup tool, the lack of behavioral disclosure is a notable gap.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with 'Booking.com attraction detail,' and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes meaning.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse for the agent to know what the 'detail page' contains. It doesn't specify whether the output is structured data, fields included, or how to interpret the result, making the tool under-specified for the task.
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?
Even though the schema covers the slug parameter 100%, the description adds valuable context by explaining the slug originates from a prior attraction search result, which helps the agent understand the parameter's provenance and how to obtain it.
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 returns a Booking.com attraction's detail page, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from search siblings by focusing on the detail page, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 parameter description indicates the slug comes from a prior attraction search, implying a sequential workflow after booking_attractions_search. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like booking_attractions_reviews or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.