1Stay Hotel Booking

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the scope ('Scoped to bookings made through your API key'), which clarifies access limitations not covered by annotations. Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat that, but it provides useful operational context without contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidelines in the second. Every sentence earns its place by adding critical information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description is mostly complete. It explains scope and usage context well, but since there's no output schema, it could briefly mention the return format (e.g., 'full booking details') to enhance completeness, though it does list included details.

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 some meaning by explaining that the 'booking_id' parameter can be either a Booking ID or hotel confirmation number, which the schema description also covers. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already documents.

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 specific verbs ('look up', 'returns') and resources ('reservation', 'booking details'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning 'retrieve_booking' for guest-facing lookups. It specifies the scope ('bookings made through your API key'), making it highly specific and differentiated.

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 explicit usage guidelines: it states when to use this tool ('developer/API-level lookups') and when to use an alternative ('For guest-facing reservation lookups, use retrieve_booking'). This directly addresses sibling tool differentiation and context, leaving no ambiguity about appropriate use cases.

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