booking_attractions_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that results are 'normalized' and that category/subcategory filters use a 'discoverable category taxonomy' — useful behavioral hints. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or response shape in detail.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every clause adds meaningful information: source, normalization, destination/date scope, optional filters, and discoverable categories. No waste.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core: search scope, filters, and category discovery. It doesn't explicitly state the return format (e.g., list of attraction objects), but 'search results' implies it. Slightly more detail on pagination could push it to 5.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema; it repeats the filter concept but doesn't provide additional syntax or relationship details. It does reinforce the taxonomy idea but not enough to exceed baseline.

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 'Search Booking.com attractions' — a specific verb+resource pair. It further clarifies that it returns normalized results for a destination/date range with optional filters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like booking_attractions_detail and booking_attractions_reviews.

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: searching for attractions/things-to-do in a destination within a date range. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear. No misdirection.

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