expedia_activities_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention 'Returns normalized... results' and the input criteria, which adds some transparency. However, it omits details like pagination, result limits, ordering, or any potential side effects. For a search tool, it gives basic but not comprehensive transparency.

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 sentence of 17 words, front-loaded with the primary action and resource ('Search Expedia activities'). It avoids redundancy and every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and inputs.

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?

The tool has a nested object parameter with no properties defined in the schema, no output schema, and no annotations. The description hints at the required search criteria but does not explain how to structure the 'option' payload or what the normalized results contain. This is a critical gap for correct invocation and interpretation, especially given the opaque schema.

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 has 100% coverage with a single property 'option' described as 'Activity search payload', which is vague. The description adds meaning by specifying 'free-text destination and date range', helping the agent understand what the opaque nested payload should capture. It doesn't provide the exact structure inside the option object, but this extra context pushes it above the 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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'Expedia activities', and further specifies 'Expedia Things To Do (activities/tours)'. It also defines the scope with 'free-text destination and date range'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like expedia_properties_search and expedia_flights_search, which target different Expedia offerings.

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 for when to use the tool: searching for activities/tours by destination and date. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select this over property or flight searches, but explicit exclusions are absent.

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