hotels_reviews_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool returns one page, that pagination is supported, that the response reports whether another page is available, and that private/booking/account data is excluded. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or why check_in/check_out are required, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, returned fields, pagination behavior, property_id sourcing, and exclusions. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no 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?

For a paginated read tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields, pagination mechanics, and how to obtain property_id. The main gap is that the required check_in and check_out parameters are not explained, which an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description adds real meaning for property_id (numeric global id from a Search response) and for page/page_size (walking the archive). However, the required check_in and check_out parameters and optional adults, locale, and currency are not explained beyond their schema names. Given the high schema description coverage, this is acceptable but not exemplary.

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's verb and resource: 'List Hotels.com guest reviews' for a specific property, and it enumerates the returned fields (reviewer, date, traveler type, rating label, title, message). This makes the purpose unmistakable. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling hotels_reviews tool, 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 description gives actionable usage guidance: use page and page_size to walk the archive, and source property_id from a Search response's properties[].id. It also clarifies what is excluded (booking, account, and private review data). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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