check_in

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 only says 'Request mobile check-in' without revealing side effects, authentication requirements, or whether the operation mutates reservation state. The action word 'request' hints at a non-destructive operation but does not confirm it.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately short, though it sacrifices critical detail for brevity. Structurally, it is front-loaded with the core action.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a sparse description, the tool is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, prerequisites, side effects, or parameter semantics, leaving an agent with insufficient information to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention confirmationNumber, roomPreferences, or estimatedArrivalTime at all, providing zero guidance on their meaning or usage beyond what the schema itself gives (names/types).

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 states a specific action ('Request') on a specific resource ('mobile check-in') with a condition ('for an existing reservation'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like modify_reservation or cancel_reservation, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'for an existing reservation' implies the user must already have a reservation, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives. There is no guidance on how it differs from get_reservation or status, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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