Check booking action

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the side effect of writing a decision event and mentions underlying policy/memory, but does not detail whether the tool is safe, idempotent, or has destructive potential.

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 efficient sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core function, the second adds a key side effect. Well structured for quick scanning.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides only the high-level purpose. It does not explain allowed values, return format, or how to interpret the four possible outcomes (allowed, blocked, risky, warns), leaving gaps for effective use.

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% and the tool description provides no details about the 7 parameters (e.g., meaning of 'now', 'date', 'players', etc.). The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 booking status (allowed, blocked, risky, warns) and mentions writing a decision event. However, it could better distinguish itself from sibling 'write_decision_event' by clarifying that its primary purpose is checking, not just writing.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With siblings like 'create_soft_hold' and 'check_pricing_action', the description fails to clarify that this is for checking policy compliance before a booking action.

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