Fetch Expedia Stays property guest reviews by property ID. Get overall rating plus recent reviewer names, dates, ratings, and messages for hotel analysis.
Expedia Stays property guest reviews. Returns a hotel's overall rating and highlighted/recent guest reviews (reviewer, date, rating, message) for a known property id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| option | Yes | Property reviews payload |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Input schema / properties / option / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "adults": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "check_in": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "check_out": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "currency": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "locale": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "property_id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+}Input schema / properties / option / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "check_in",
+ "check_out",
+ "property_id"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose read-only behavior ('Returns'), the data source (Expedia Stays), and the output scope ('overall rating and highlighted/recent guest reviews'). However, it does not mention pagination, the number of reviews returned, rate limits, or the role of the required check_in/check_out parameters in fetching reviews.
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 with no filler. It front-loads the domain and resource, then states the returned contents in a compact, scannable way. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry more contextual weight. It helpfully summarizes the return contents, but an agent still has no guidance on why check_in/check_out are required, what value formats are expected, or whether more reviews are available through pagination. Adequate for a simple call, but with clear gaps.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that property_id must be a 'known' id, which is useful, but it does not explain the required check_in/check_out fields or the optional locale/currency parameters beyond the generic 'Property reviews payload' label in the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('Expedia Stays property guest reviews'), and it enumerates the returned data: overall rating and guest reviews with reviewer, date, rating, and message. It also states the precondition 'for a known property id.' However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like expedia_properties_detail or expedia_properties_search, so it stops short of a 5.
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 when this tool should be used: after a property id has already been obtained, rather than for discovery. Still, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related endpoints such as expedia_properties_detail, and no when-not-to-use or alternative-tool mention.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.