booking

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, but the description adds value by explaining the tool is rule-based rather than a live calendar, and by specifying the AEST hours and after-hours handling. This goes beyond the minimal safety profile.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first defines purpose and scope, the second gives operational rules. Well-structured and 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 simple read-only tool with two clearly documented parameters, the description covers purpose, scope, edge cases (after-hours, same-day), and the non-live nature. No output schema is needed given the 'whether' wording.

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 covers parameter formats completely (YYYY-MM-DD, HH:MM 24h). The description adds that the date/time refers to pick-up and implies AEST timezone via the standard hours statement, providing marginal extra meaning.

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 checks whether a pick-up date/time is bookable under standard operating rules. It distinguishes itself as a rule-based check ('not a live calendar') and is clearly separate from siblings like get_quote and request_booking.

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 gives useful operating context: standard hours, after-hours classification, and same-day phone advice. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the phrase 'same-day should phone' provides guidance on when not to rely solely on this tool.

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 and openWorldHint, so the description builds on that by adding 'Deterministic — never estimates' and the fallback behavior for unmatched requests. It also clarifies that prices are per-vehicle, which is beyond the structured fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, each packed with relevant information: exactness, live source, scope, determinism, and fallback behavior. No redundancy or filler. The most critical info 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?

With no output schema, the description adequately conveys return value semantics (exact per-vehicle prices) and the 'none' fallback. It does not detail output format or surcharge handling, but these are partially covered by the schema's time parameter and are less critical for a simple quote tool. Overall, it is reasonably 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?

All parameters are fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by specifying valid place values for cruise terminal runs (e.g., 'Brisbane Cruise Terminal' or 'Pinkenba') and clarifying that prices are per-vehicle, which enhances the meaning of from/to parameters.

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's purpose: providing exact per-vehicle prices from a live fixed price list. It specifies the resource (fixed price list) and scope (airport transfers and cruise terminal runs), which distinguishes it from siblings like check_availability or request_booking.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (for specific airport transfers and cruise terminal runs) and provides a fallback instruction for 'none' matches. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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 openWorldHint=false. The description adds content scope (fleet, pricing, policies, service area, contact details) and domain context, which is useful. There is no contradiction and no unmentioned behavioral traits.

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?

Two sentences: the first lists the data categories, the second gives usage instruction. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless lookup tool, the description completely conveys the purpose, content, and appropriate usage context. No output schema exists, but the described content categories sufficiently set expectations.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description is not required to explain parameters; it correctly focuses on the response content.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves 'Full business facts' including fleet, pricing, policies, service area, and contact details. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the preliminary reference for GC Airport Transfers questions.

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 gives a clear usage directive: 'Use this before answering questions about GC Airport Transfers.' It implies this is the first stop for general business information, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings for availability/quote/booking scenarios.

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 only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, providing minimal safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the booking is created as 'pending', the operator confirms, and the customer receives an email payment link. It also clarifies that no payment happens through this tool, which is important for agents to know. This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 three sentences: purpose, behavioral flow, and a safety note. It is front-loaded with the primary action and has no wasted words. All content earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the overall behavior: request creation, pending state, operator confirmation, email payment link, and no payment. It also gives a usage guideline. Minor omissions like sandbox mode are handled in the schema, so the description is sufficiently 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions 'fixed-price route' and 'no payment' but does not add further meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Lodge a booking REQUEST'), the resource ('booking'), and the scope ('any fixed-price route — airport or cruise terminal'). It also differentiates from sibling tools like check_availability, get_quote, and get_service_info by focusing on the actual booking action rather than pre-booking steps.

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 provides clear context: use this for fixed-price routes, creates a pending booking, and no payment occurs. It also instructs users to confirm details with the customer first, which is a usage prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use check_availability first', so it falls short of a 5.

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