get_booking

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds detail on return values (hotel, dates, room, rate, status), which is useful context beyond annotations. It does not disclose auth requirements or potential failures, but for a read-only retrieval tool, it is sufficient.

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 sentences: a main line, an Args section, and a Returns section. It is well-structured, front-loads the purpose, and contains no fluff.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description explains the return value and parameter meaning. It is complete enough given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema.

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 has one parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description adds 'The booking ID or confirmation number', which clarifies the parameter's nature beyond the schema title 'Booking Id'. This fully compensates for the lack of schema description.

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 'Get details for a specific hotel booking', using the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'booking'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_vehicle_booking by specifying 'hotel booking'.

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 when to use (to retrieve a specific booking) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or mention alternatives like get_booking_link. It is adequate but lacks clarity for an AI agent to discriminate among siblings.

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