select_room

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool does not submit a reservation and that legacy room codes require an unambiguous ratePlanCode. However, it does not mention side effects, state changes, idempotency, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps in the behavioral profile.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second adds a specific condition and a crucial clarification. Every word adds value with no 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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the role of hotelId, the response format, or the prerequisites for calling the tool (e.g., that an offerId must come from prior search results). While it gives key usage hints, an agent would still be uncertain about required inputs and expected output.

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 explain all parameters. It clarifies offerId as the selection key and gives context to roomCode/ratePlanCode for legacy codes, but hotelId is not mentioned at all. This leaves a required-looking parameter unexplained, making the description insufficient for a 4-parameter tool.

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 selects an exact offerId from search results, which is a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly notes that it does not submit a reservation, distinguishing it from final checkout steps. This effectively differentiates it from siblings like checkout or add_extras.

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 search results are obtained (from search results) and mentions a legacy room code condition, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The clarification that it does not submit a reservation hints at its role, but explicit routing to siblings is absent.

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