Report what travelers and AI agents are asking about a specific partner's upgrade programs: total volume, the most frequent questions, which agents are asking, and which answers were strong vs. which need review. Pass the partner name (e.g. 'Air Canada', 'MSC Cruises').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| partner | No | Partner name, e.g. 'Air Canada'. Ignored for partner-scoped tokens (locked to their own brand). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to repeat safety traits. It adds valuable context about the report content (volume, frequent questions, which agents, answer quality), which enhances transparency beyond the structured 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb 'Report' and the resource. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary information. Examples are included efficiently.
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?
The tool is simple (1 parameter, no required fields) with no output schema. The description fully explains what the report covers: total volume, most frequent questions, which agents ask, and answer strengths. This is sufficient for a user to understand the tool's output without needing additional context.
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 coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds extra meaning by specifying that the partner parameter is ignored for partner-scoped tokens, which is not in the schema description. It also gives concrete examples, slightly exceeding the baseline.
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 uses the specific verb 'Report' and clearly identifies the resource as 'what travelers and AI agents are asking about a specific partner's upgrade programs'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like ask_upgrade_agent (which asks questions) and get_partner_info (general info) by focusing on aggregated insights.
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 states to 'Pass the partner name' and provides examples, making it clear how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools for different needs, such as getting raw question data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct function or workflow step (e.g., general info vs booking-specific check, bid placement vs bid status, partner lookup vs pricing), and descriptions clarify when to use which. Even overlapping actions like check_upgrade_eligibility and start_eligibility_check are clearly differentiated by context.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_upgrade_eligibility, place_bid, get_bid_status). A few deviate slightly (partner_question_insights, usage_totals) but the naming is still intuitive and readable overall.
17 tools is at the upper end of typical but still well-scoped given the breadth of functionalities (eligibility, bidding, watch, partner info, analytics). Every tool has a clear purpose, so the count feels justified rather than bloated.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of upgrade management: eligibility check, bid placement/modification/status, pricing, partner info, watch, and system metrics. A minor gap is the absence of a cancel bid tool, but the main workflows are complete.