check_seats

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Check currently available seats', which implies a read-only operation but does not disclose side effects, return format, error conditions, or rate limiting. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficiently transparent.

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, compact sentence that conveys the essential action without fluff. Every word earns its place, and the core purpose 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides the core functionality. It misses a note on return values (e.g., count vs. list) and any usage context, but is largely adequate for an agent to call correctly. The absence of annotations and output schema makes it slightly incomplete, but not severely.

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 has no description for flight_id (0% coverage), so the description must clarify it. The phrase 'for a demo flight' adds a qualifier but does not explicitly state that flight_id identifies the flight. It partially compensates by linking the parameter to the flight context, but omits details like expected format or examples.

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 task: checking currently available seats for a flight, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_flight or book_flight, though the involvement of seats is unique enough that this is minor.

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 alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must have a valid flight ID) or context like 'use before booking'. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'check'.

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