get_booking

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 mentions that the tool 'looks up' a booking, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state idempotency, side effects, or any constraints. This is minimal for a tool with no annotations.

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 concise with three lines covering purpose, parameter details, and return summary. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no unnecessary information.

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 simple 1-parameter lookup tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides sufficient context: return includes 'customer, pricing, and product info.' It could mention potential errors or references to siblings, but overall it is adequate.

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 description explains the only parameter 'booking_number' with an example ('e.g., 123456789'), adding meaningful context beyond the input schema which only provides a title. Given 0% schema description coverage, this adequately compensates.

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 'Look up a specific booking by its booking number,' specifying the verb (look up), resource (booking), and identifier. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_booking_payments and search_bookings_by_customer/date.

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 use when you have a booking number, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., searching by customer or date). The context of sibling names provides some guidance, but the description lacks explicit usage context.

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