BookingTruth Booking Assurance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: CONFIRMED is only returned on supplier-authoritative evidence, and anything weaker returns UNKNOWN plus the indicated state. This goes beyond the annotations, explaining the verification strictness and output semantics.

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, with the core action and output front-loaded. The first sentence packs the main purpose and state list, the second adds the confirmation threshold and sandbox note. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It lists the possible verdict states and mentions the proof packet. It does not detail the proof packet structure or error handling, but for a single-parameter tool with clear scope, it is adequate. The sandbox note adds operational 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?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying the expected document types (emails, receipts) and the parsing/reconciliation purpose, which helps the agent understand what to provide beyond the schema's generic 'raw booking documents' description.

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 states a specific action ('Parse booking/confirmation documents') and the resource (documents) with a clear output (reconciled booking-state verdicts). It is specific and distinguishes the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'supplier_coverage'.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It mentions the sandbox environment but no exclusionary conditions or alternate routing. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the list includes per-supplier status, but does not describe other behaviors like pagination or completeness. It is consistent with the annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No extraneous words or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the essential return value: suppliers and their status. It lacks detail on whether the list is exhaustive or how statuses are interpreted, but given the tool's simplicity, it is largely complete.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to explain parameters. It focuses on the output (suppliers and status), which is appropriate given there are no inputs to describe. Baseline 4 applies.

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 lists suppliers with per-supplier status (seeded/planned), using a specific verb and resource. It's unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tool, even without explicit differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling booking_check. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context without any explicit alternatives or conditions.

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