expedia_properties_detail

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It lists the output fields, but it doesn't disclose potential errors, rate limits, or how invalid IDs are handled. It also doesn't specify the structure of the required 'option' payload, which is a significant behavioral 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 the tool name and primary purpose, and includes specific output fields. Every word adds value with no 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?

The tool has one nested parameter, no annotations, and no output schema. The description conveys the main output fields and the need for a property ID, but lacks details on how to populate the option payload and any additional prerequisites or error conditions. This leaves the tool mostly usable but incomplete for a fully autonomous agent.

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 one parameter 'option' described as 'Property detail payload', which is vague and provides no field names or structure. The tool description mentions 'known property id' but doesn't explain how to include it in the payload. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail, making it hard for an agent to construct the argument correctly.

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 hotel's detail summary (name, star rating, address/coordinates, top amenities) for a known property ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like expedia_properties_search (finding properties) and expedia_properties_reviews (reviews) by focusing on the detail summary.

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 phrase 'for a known property id' implies a prerequisite of already having the ID (e.g., from a search tool), which gives clear usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when seeking reviews or availability.

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