get_booking_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., booking details, status, timestamps), whether it's a read-only operation, potential error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), or performance aspects like rate limits. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for the agent.

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 appropriately concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first followed by parameter details. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the 'Args:' section could be integrated more smoothly. There's no unnecessary verbosity, earning a high score for clarity and brevity.

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 (a read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what information is returned, error handling, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., needing a valid booking ID from 'create_booking'). For a tool with no structured data support, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clarifies that 'booking_id' is a 'unique ID of the booking', but doesn't explain format constraints (e.g., numeric range) or provide examples. Since the schema lacks descriptions, the baseline is low, and the description only partially compensates, resulting in an average score.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific booking'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_bookings' (which likely lists multiple bookings). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_property_by_id' or 'update_booking_status' in terms of resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_booking_by_id' over 'get_bookings' (e.g., for a single booking vs. multiple), nor does it address prerequisites like authentication or availability. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent without clear usage cues.

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