expedia_locations_search

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output nature (typeahead suggestions) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any normalization details, rate limits, or error behavior. It implies a safe search operation, but additional behavioral context would be expected given zero annotation coverage.

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, about 20 words, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. It conveys the search target, the types of results, and the input requirement without any fluff or repetition.

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 one opaque nested parameter with no defined properties, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains what the tool does but does not provide the essential information about how to construct the 'option' payload, leaving the agent without enough details to invoke the tool correctly. This is a significant gap for a tool with such an unspecified 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% description coverage, but the parameter description ('Location search payload') is tautological. The tool description adds the phrase 'for a free-text term', which gives a hint about the payload's content, but does not specify the internal structure of the 'option' object (e.g., expected fields like 'text'). With high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description provides only marginal added meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Expedia destinations'), and further specifies the return type: 'normalized destination/property typeahead suggestions (cities, airports, neighborhoods, hotels)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like expedia_properties_search, expedia_flights_search, and expedia_activities_search, which cover different Expedia search domains.

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: it is for typeahead destination suggestions for a free-text term, listing the categories of results. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or exclude specific use cases (e.g., 'use expedia_properties_search for property availability'). This is clear context but lacks explicit differentiation.

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