book_seats

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. 'Reserves' implies a mutation, but it does not clarify what happens if seats are unavailable, whether the hold is temporary, whether a booking record is created, or any other side effects.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded, though slightly underspecified for the complexity of the operation.

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 the booking context and lack of annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits key context such as prerequisites (e.g., seat availability), interaction with payment, failure modes, and whether the reservation is temporary or permanent. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 schema descriptions already cover all three parameters with examples and types. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it is sufficient but not enhanced.

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 'Reserves selected seats for the user' uses a specific verb ('reserves') and identifies the resource ('selected seats') and actor ('the user'). It clearly distinguishes itself from read-only sibling tools like get_showtimes and get_seat_map, though it does not explicitly differentiate from process_payment.

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 prerequisites (e.g., checking seat availability via get_seat_map) or the intended flow with process_payment, leaving the usage context implicit.

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