get_booking_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Get the agent's booking history,' implying a read operation, but does not mention whether it reads only the authenticated agent's bookings, whether pagination is required, if results are sorted, or any side effects. The lack of annotations and behavioral context leaves the agent with limited understanding of what will happen.

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: one sentence plus an Args list. It front-loads the core purpose and uses a clear format for parameters. No redundant words or filler content, so every sentence earns its place.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the basic idea and parameters but lacks details about return format, pagination behavior, or how to interpret results. It does not mention any prerequisites or limitations. It is minimally viable but could be enhanced with more 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 has no descriptions, so the description adds useful clarifications: 'page: Page number (starts at 1)' and 'per_page: Items per page (max 100)'. It also labels status and provider as filters. However, it does not specify allowed values or format for status/provider, leaving ambiguity. The added meaning is helpful but incomplete.

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's purpose: 'Get the agent's booking history.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'booking history' make it distinct from siblings like search_trips or create_booking. It also lists relevant arguments that reinforce its role as a query tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for past bookings vs. searching available trips, nor does it note any competition with sibling tools. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it.

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