hotels_offers

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

The description discloses that booking, checkout, payment, and reservation tokens are never returned, which is critical behavioral information given no annotations are present. It also implies read-only behavior by describing returned offer summaries, but does not explicitly state idempotency, side effects, or error/group-level behavior.

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 compact with four sentences, each adding information about form, scope, or exclusions. The opening sentence and second sentence are slightly redundant ('room offers' and 'room/unit offer summaries'), but overall structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Given a single nested request parameter with no detailed schema and no output schema, the description provides enough for basic use but misses a full definition of the request structure beyond property_id. An agent cannot fully know what fields to set for date ranges or other potentially required inputs, so completeness is adequate but not high.

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 only parameter request is described in the schema only as 'Room offers request', so the description adds meaningful semantics by explaining property_id is the numeric global property id from a Search response. However, the request may contain other fields like date range or room options, and the description does not elaborate on those.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving Hotels.com room offers for one property and date range, stating 'Get Hotels.com room offers' and specific return contents. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like hotels_rates, though 'offer summaries' and 'non-transactional' differentiate it conceptually.

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?

It gives helpful context that the tool is for public, non-transactional summaries and notes property_id comes from a Search response, which helps an agent understand prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hotels_rates or hotels_property, nor mention exclusions.

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