get_seat_reviewsGet user-submitted reviews for a flight, optionally filtered to a specific seat. Shows ratings, comments, seat number, cabin, and helpfulness votes. Free — no auth required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seat_number | No | Optional seat number to filter reviews (e.g. '12A') | |
| flight_number | Yes | Flight number, e.g. 'QF1' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable astra info: 'Free — no auth required' and the returned fields. Because there is no output schema, enumerating ratings, comments, seat number, cabin, and helpfulness votes helps set expectations. No contradiction with annotations is present.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then the optional filter, then output fields and auth status. Every sentence add value with no 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 simple read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and a no-auth annotation, the description covers the essence: what it returns, optional filtering, and access requirements. The lack of an output schema is compensated by listing the key output fields. Nothing critical for invoking it correctly appears missing.
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 fully describes both parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by framing seat_number as an optional filter and confirming the resource is tied to a flight, which reinforces the schema rather than just repeating it.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('user-submitted reviews for a flight'), with an optional seat filter. It also enumerates the data shown (ratings, comments, seat number, cabin, helpfulness votes), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tool's like seat maps or seat infor. The scope is unambiguous and no tautology is present.
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 gives clear context: use this tool to retrieve user-submitted reviews for a flight, optionally filtered by seat number. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when this tool matches the need.
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.
Alerts, search, and reviews are clearly distinct, but find_best_seats, interactive_seat_finder, get_seat_info, and get_seatmap all render interactive seatmaps and overlap in purpose. find_best_seats and interactive_seat_finder are especially hard to distinguish despite minor differences in preferences.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern like create_seat_alert, list_seat_alerts, get_seat_reviews, and search_flight. The main deviations are interactive_seat_finder, which uses a noun phrase instead of a verb, and get_seatmap as a compound rather than get_seat_map.
10 tools is a reasonable size for a flight seatmap server covering seat maps, search, alerts, reviews, and discovery. The count is slightly less clean because interactive_seat_finder largely duplicates find_best_seats, but the overall scope is still manageable.
The core workflow of searching flights, viewing seatmaps, inspecting seats, finding best seats, and managing seat alerts is well covered. Minor gaps include no way to update a seat alert and no way to submit or edit seat reviews, but these are workable limitations.