explain_booking_constraintsExplain fixture-backed booking constraints for a sample property and rate; no property authority or live policy decision is provided.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | Yes | ||
| property_id | Yes | ||
| room_rate_id | Yes | ||
| traveler_constraints | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that the data is fixture-backed and that the tool does not consult live property authority, meaning results are illustrative rather than definitive. This is a meaningful behavioral disclosure 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and no redundant information. Every phrase adds value—'fixture-backed', 'sample', and the caveat about authority.
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 covers the tool's purpose and its limitations, but it remains incomplete because it omits the role of traveler_constraints, which is a meaningful optional input for generating constraints, and it doesn't describe the form of the output. The schema and annotations don't fill these gaps, leaving the agent without enough information to confidently invoke the tool for complex scenarios.
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 provides no description for the four parameters, and the tool description only gives partial context by referring to 'sample property and rate' for property_id and room_rate_id. It does not explain the language parameter or the traveler_constraints array, which are crucial for understanding how to construct a valid request.
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 action ('Explain') and scope ('fixture-backed booking constraints for a sample property and rate'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_availability and prepare_reservation_action. It also clarifies the non-authoritative nature, reinforcing its distinct analytical purpose.
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 provides a clear when-to-use for sample data and an explicit when-not-to-use by stating that no live property authority or policy decision is provided. This tells the agent that for authoritative booking decisions, another tool is needed, though no specific alternative is named.
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 has a clearly distinct role: searching availability, explaining constraints, and preparing a reservation action. There is no overlap in their purposes, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.
All tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern: search_availability, explain_booking_constraints, prepare_reservation_action. The naming is consistent and predictable across the entire set.
With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for a fixture-based booking demo. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function within the stated purpose, and the count is appropriate for the server's limited scope.
The server covers the core stages of a booking workflow: searching, understanding constraints, and preparing an action. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit property listing or booking confirmation tools, but given the fixture-based nature, this is an acceptable limitation.