expedia_properties_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Search' and 'Returns normalized results,' which implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state it. It also omits any mention of prerequisites (e.g., using a location ID), rate limits, error handling, or pagination, leaving the agent underinformed about side effects and operational constraints.

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-loaded with the main action ('Search Expedia Stays properties'), and contains no redundant information. Every clause adds useful context: the resource, the normalized result, and the key inputs (destination and date range).

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?

For a search tool with an opaque object parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected structure of the 'option' payload, how to specify the destination (city name vs. location ID), what 'normalized' means in terms of response format, whether pagination or sorting is supported, or any integration with sibling tools like expedia_locations_search or expedia_properties_filters. The agent would likely need to probe or guess to use this tool effectively.

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 describes the only parameter 'option' as 'Property search payload,' which is vague. The description adds value by specifying that the search is for a free-text destination and date range, giving the agent some idea of what to include in the payload. However, it doesn't detail the exact structure of the option object or mention other possible fields (e.g., number of guests, filters), so parameter meaning is only partially clarified.

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 'Search Expedia Stays properties' with a specific verb and resource, and clarifies that it returns search results for a free-text destination and date range. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like expedia_properties_detail, expedia_properties_filters, and expedia_properties_reviews, which serve different purposes.

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: when a search for hotel properties is needed based on a free-text destination and date range. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the implied usage is strong and unambiguous given the sibling tool names.

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