Jetblanc Private-Flight Brief Intake

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

Annotations already note that the tool is idempotent and not read-only, but the description adds the side effect of emailing Jetblanc's desk and gives operational guidance for idempotencyKey reuse. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 short sentences, each tuned for purpose: core action, exclusion, and retry guidance. No wasted words and the key facts are 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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested request object, 4 params, no output schema), the description leaves out necessary workflow context: how this relates to sibling validations, what the response looks like, or whether any precondition must be met beyond an 'authorised' brief. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, so the description carries a heavy burden. It adds semantic value for idempotencyKey (retry behavior) and implies userApproved corresponds to 'authorised', but it says nothing about internalTest or the request object structure. This is partial compensation, not complete.

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 names a clear action ('save the authorised brief') and a side effect ('email Jetblanc's desk'), and explicitly distinguishes what it is not ('Not a flight booking'). This gives an agent an immediate, specific understanding of the tool's scope.

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 implies usage context ('authorised brief' and 'LIVE') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like get_request_status or validate_trip_brief. The 'Not a flight booking' exclusion is present but low-value for differentiating from the actual siblings.

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 cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the useful context that access is public and self-service, and reinforces that no request is created. No contradiction with annotations, but the description does not disclose much beyond the 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?

The description is very short and front-loaded, with no filler. Each clause carries some signal, though the noun-phrase style makes it read more like a label than a full sentence.

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 input schema and no output schema, the description is the only source for what the call returns. It suggests that the tool exposes supported fields, but it never states what the contract contains or what the response shape is. It is adequate for a safe, zero-argument call but leaves interpretation underspecified.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is complete by default and the description has no parameter burden to carry. Mentioning 'supported fields' is consistent with what a caller would look for in a contract-access tool.

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 name supplies the action 'get' and the resource 'charter_intake_contract', and the description distinguishes it from creating a request. However, the description itself is mostly a set of attributes ('Public contract, self-service access and supported fields') rather than an explicit statement of what the tool does or returns.

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 phrase 'Does not create a request' provides a clear when-not relative to create_charter_request, and 'self-service access' implies use when an agent needs the contract or supported fields. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer get_request_status or validate_trip_brief instead.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the operation's safety profile. The description adds value by specifying response content exclusions (no contacts, quotes, supplier info, internal notes), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not describe the return structure, format, or other behaviors, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 highly concise, consisting of a single sentence. However, it lacks front-loading of the core purpose and reads as a fragment rather than a structured definition. The short length is appropriate, but the clarity and order could be improved; it is not a clear, well-organized tool description.

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 description is incomplete for a simple tool: it does not state the primary function (retrieving status) or describe the return value. It only provides a negative list of what is not included. Given the presence of annotations and a single parameter, a fuller description is expected to explain what the tool returns and under what circumstances it should be used.

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 defines requestId with a pattern, but schema description coverage is 0%, so no descriptive text accompanies the parameter. The description refers to 'this key' but does not explicitly link it to requestId, nor does it explain what the key represents or how it should be formatted. With zero schema coverage, the description should compensate by clarifying the parameter's meaning, but it does not.

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 focuses on what is excluded ('no contacts, quotes, supplier information or internal notes') rather than stating the primary action. The verb 'get' appears only in the tool name, not in the description, and the phrase 'minimal receipt' is vague and does not explicitly state that this returns the status of a request. It does not distinguish the tool from its siblings beyond implying a minimal response.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of the siblings (create_charter_request, get_charter_intake_contract, validate_trip_brief). It does not mention any conditions or alternatives. The only hint is 'Only this key's minimal receipt,' which implies a narrow use case but is not actionable for tool selection.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key behavioral trait that no email is sent and nothing is saved, which is useful. It does not add much beyond that, but it does not contradict the 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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and scope, and immediately states the two exclusions (no saving, no email). 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 tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what a valid brief looks like, what the request object should contain, what the return value is, or what 'explicitly approved' means in practice. The annotations cover safety but not the operational details an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain the meaning of 'request', 'userApproved', or 'internalTest'. The userApproved const=true is visible in the schema, but the description does not clarify what the request object should contain or how internalTest affects behavior.

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 ('validate') and resource ('explicitly approved brief'), and distinguishes itself by noting it does not save or send email. It is clear enough to separate from siblings like create_charter_request, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 implies the tool is for validation-only workflows and excludes saving/emailing, which gives some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus create_charter_request or get_request_status, nor does it mention the required userApproved=true precondition beyond the schema.

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