tripcom_hotels_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the data source (Trip.com's server-rendered hotel-list page), the credential-free nature of the data, and the return format (normalized hotel summaries with specific fields). It does not cover edge cases like invalid URL pairs or pagination, but for a read-only extraction tool, it provides above-average behavioral disclosure.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the purpose, lists the return fields, explains the required input format, and states the data source. Every sentence adds value without repetition, and the most critical information is 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description provides a reasonably complete picture: it specifies the input parameters, the output structure, and the limitation of no free-text search. It does not detail error handling or response size, but for a simple list-extraction tool, the description gives sufficient context for an agent to use it 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 input schema already describes both parameters fully, and the description adds meaningful context by explaining that city_slug and city_id must come together as a pair from a specific URL format. This goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions, making the parameter semantics clearer for an agent.

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 searches Trip.com hotels by city and explicitly lists the returned data fields (name, location, star rating, etc.). It distinguishes itself from other tools by noting it returns Trip.com's own featured hotels page and requires a specific city_slug/city_id pair, which is a unique operational constraint.

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 on when to use the tool: when you have the exact city_slug and city_id from a known Trip.com URL. It also explains that Trip.com does not expose a free-text city search, informing the agent not to attempt that with this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for free-text search, so it falls short of the highest bar for when-not-to-use guidance.

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