tripcom_hotel_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the data is 'credential-free public data sourced from Trip.com's own server-rendered hotel-detail page' and explicitly calls out that pricing is absent, which helps set expectations. It also mentions 'normalized' output, adding a behavioral trait beyond just the return fields.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then uses a structured list of return sections. Every sentence carries information, from the data source to the pricing limitation, without repetition or fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, the description extensively enumerates the response sections (identity, location, rating, images, policies, etc.) and explicitly states what is not included (pricing). It could be more complete by addressing error behavior or locale/language of data, but it covers the main expectations well.

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?

Both parameters (id and slug) are fully described in the schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema; it only mentions the search endpoint as a source for id indirectly, which is already 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 opens with 'Get Trip.com hotel detail' – a specific verb and resource – and then enumerates the returned data sections. It clearly positions this as the Trip.com hotel-detail tool, distinct from the sibling tripcom_hotels_search and other providers' hotel detail tools.

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 states pricing is not included and directs users to 'use the search endpoint for a city's current display prices,' providing an explicit alternative for a specific use case. It also implies this is the correct tool when hotel identity, location, ratings, images, and policies are needed, though it lacks a broader when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement.

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