retrieve_booking

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

The description adds significant behavioural context beyond annotations: it enforces identity verification, does not return booking details in conversation, and sends confirmation to email. This aligns with readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations. A minor missing detail is potential rate limits or logging, but overall transparent.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured with clear sections and bold key points. It front-loads the core purpose and provides conditional logic. Every sentence serves a purpose, though a slight reduction would improve conciseness.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the workflow thoroughly: identity verification, email resending, and fallback behavior. The only missing aspect is a distinction from the sibling get_booking, which could mislead an agent about which to choose. Still, the tool's context is well handled.

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 100% (baseline 3), but the description adds value by explaining the verification factor groups, the requirement of check_in_date with last_four_card, and the purpose of updated_email. This goes beyond mere parameter descriptions, aiding correct invocation.

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 finds a reservation and resends the confirmation email, with a specific verb and resource. It is identified as a guest-facing lookup tool with identity verification, which distinguishes it from sibling cancel_booking. However, the sibling get_booking (likely an internal lookup) is not differentiated, so a slight gap prevents a 5.

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 when-to-use and prerequisites, including required fields (full name, at least one verification factor). It also instructs when not to use (for cancellation, use cancel_booking) and how to handle missing verification factors. This is comprehensive and actionable.

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