list_fees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and optional filter, but does not mention pagination, ordering, or what happens when booking_id is null. The max_items parameter suggests a limit behavior that is not explained, leaving uncertainty about result size and whether fees are aggregated or itemized.

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, focused sentence of 9 words. Every word earns its place; it states the action, the object, and the optional scope. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.

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?

While the tool is simple and an output schema exists to document return values, the description omits critical behavioral details such as max_items semantics and default scope (all fees vs. specific booking). Without annotations or parameter descriptions, the agent has insufficient context to use the tool correctly beyond a basic call.

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. It adds meaning for booking_id ('optionally for a single booking') but completely ignores max_items, which is left undocumented in both schema and description. The agent gets no explanation of what max_items controls or its default behavior, requiring guesswork.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('booking fees'), and it distinguishes from sibling list tools (e.g., list_payments, list_refunds) by focusing specifically on fees. It also adds a scope qualifier ('optionally for a single booking') that clarifies the primary parameter's behavior, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'List booking fees' implies it is for fee retrieval, it does not explain when not to use it or mention related tools like list_payments or list_quotes. There is no exclusion or alternative mentioned, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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