expedia_properties_reviews

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the limited scope ('highlighted/recent') but omits any statement about read-only nature, auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error behavior. For a read operation this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 long, front-loads the purpose, and includes only essential details about inputs and outputs. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains return values (overall rating, review fields) and the input prerequisite. It misses details on pagination or number of reviews, but for a straightforward retrieval tool it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100% with a single 'option' object described as 'Property reviews payload'. The description adds that this payload requires a known property ID, which gives some semantic meaning beyond the schema's generic label. However, the structure of the payload is not detailed, so the added value is modest.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('Expedia Stays property guest reviews') with concrete output details (overall rating, highlighted/recent reviews with reviewer, date, rating, message). It also distinguishes itself from sibling review tools by naming the platform and property-id prerequisite.

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 (obtain the ID first), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like expedia_properties_detail or search, nor does it mention exclusions or failover options. Usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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