Get PNR status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals what information is returned and the status codes, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only lookup, what happens for invalid/unknown PNRs, or whether the data reflects a point-in-time snapshot.

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?

One focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and then uses a compact list to enumerate the response contents. No filler or redundancy.

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 lookup, the description supplies enough context to invoke it: it states the input and the key output components. It is slightly incomplete because there is no output schema and no mention of invalid-PNR behavior or response envelope, but the listed fields largely compensate.

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 already documents the single pnr parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates the '10 digit' nature and adds no format details or edge-case handling beyond the schema. Minor inconsistency: description says 10 digits while schema maxLength allows 13.

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?

Clearly identifies the operation as retrieving current PNR status and enumerates the returned details (train, date, route, class, per-passenger booking/current status, coach/berth). This is distinct from sibling tools focused on station search, schedules, fares, and availability.

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 vs alternatives, no prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenario. The intended use must be inferred from the tool name and the PNR parameter; nothing in the text says 'use this when the user has a PNR to check' or contrasts with sibling tools.

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