Find Vrbo destination suggestions for a search term. Returns public region IDs and location types when available.
Suggest Vrbo destinations. Returns public destination suggestions, including region IDs and location types when Vrbo provides them. The verified search term is sent with Vrbo's observed lodging, destination, and entry-page criteria.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search_term | Yes | Destination text to suggest |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose return content (public destination suggestions, region IDs, location types) which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but the second sentence about "observed lodging, destination, and entry-page criteria" is jargon that adds little actionable meaning, and nothing is said about rate limits, errors, or empty results.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, but the first and second sentences overlap ("Suggest Vrbo destinations" / "Returns public destination suggestions") and the closing sentence is vague 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 one-parameter suggestion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does cover what the tool does and roughly what comes back. Only the absence of any sibling routing or edge-case behavior keeps it from a 5.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single required parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates it as "the verified search term," adding no format, matching, or length guidance beyond 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?
States a specific verb+resource ("Suggest Vrbo destinations") and elaborates on the return content (region IDs, location types). However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like vrbo_search, expedia_locations_search, or hotels_autocomplete, so the agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as vrbo_search or expedia_locations_search. The agent gets no help deciding between autocomplete-style suggestion tools and full search tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.