travel_authorize_booking

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses payment mechanisms, rebates, and card type for each source. However, it omits behavior on budget insufficiency, side effects (e.g., fund locking), idempotency, or required parameters like agentId. Provides some value but incomplete.

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 sentences front-load the action and then detail the two source routes. No wasted words, efficiently structured.

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 complex payment authorization tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers basics but lacks explanation of return values, error conditions, or parameter dependencies (e.g., mcc required for legacy). Adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 coverage is 50% (3 of 6 parameters documented). The description adds meaning for 'source' (explains enum values) and 'mcc' (reinforces MCC-locked for legacy). But no extra details for 'amountUsd', 'currency', 'agentId', or 'reference'. Baseline 3 with marginal enhancement.

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 'Authorize payment for a booking within the agent's budget,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It differentiates from siblings like travel_confirm_booking or travel_set_agent_budget by focusing on payment authorization. The two source routes further refine the 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 implies usage after booking and within budget, and guides on choosing between 'travala' and 'legacy' sources. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or ordering relative to siblings (e.g., before confirmation). Clear context but no exclusions.

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