pws_get_booking_context

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the list of returned data but discloses no extra behavioral traits such as internal multi-query behavior, rate limits, or prerequisites. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence starting with the action ('Get everything needed'), followed by a concise itemized list. No redundant wording, every element adds value.

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 carries the burden of explaining return content. It lists all major components (existing card, eligible roster, titles, storylines, recent matches, runtime, company preferences), giving a solid overview. It could specify structure or format, but the list is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what will be retrieved.

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 sole parameter showId is fully described in the schema with 'Defaults to the next unfinished show,' giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add parameter-level details, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Get everything needed to book a show intelligently.' It also lists the components (existing card, roster, titles, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch individual pieces like pws_get_roster or pws_get_titles.

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 context for using this tool is clear: it's for booking a show, providing all necessary context. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., using individual retrieval tools) for more focused queries. No misleading guidance.

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