get_booking

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is already conveyed. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the carrier's latest arrival estimate is only included once the booking is confirmed, which helps the agent set expectations. No contradictions exist. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like error handling or rate limits, but given the read-only context, this is acceptable.

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—two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and the second adds a conditional detail (arrival estimate after confirmation). Every word earns its place, and the structure is scannable for an agent.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not enumerate every return field. It sufficiently covers the key content areas: status, meaning, next actions, route, cut-offs, equipment, and arrival estimate. The tool is a simple read operation with a single parameter, and the description provides enough context for an agent to know what to expect. It doesn't mention error cases or authentication, but those are not essential for this basic get operation.

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 input schema fully documents the single parameter 'reference' with a clear description: 'A carrierBookingReference, or the carrierBookingRequestReference before confirmation.' The tool description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies for high schema coverage. The description's reference to 'once the booking is confirmed' slightly aligns with the parameter's dual reference types but does not expand on the semantics.

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 identifies the resource (a booking) and enumerates the information it returns: status, meaning, next actions, route, cut-offs, equipment, and arrival estimate. It distinguishes itself from list_bookings (which likely returns multiple bookings) and track_shipment (which may focus on location) by its emphasis on the booking's status interpretation and associated details. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it's not 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention list_bookings, track_shipment, or any other sibling, nor does it state conditions for selecting this tool. The only implicit hint is the arrival estimate being included after confirmation, but that is a behavior, not usage guidance.

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