book_seats

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, but it only says 'Reserves' without detailing behaviors like availability checks, error handling, idempotency, or any impact on payment. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating action.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately short, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (a booking action with three required parameters and an output schema), the description lacks essential context about workflow integration (e.g., payment linkage), success/failure semantics, and expected usage flow. It does not sufficiently support an agent's decision-making.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, neither enhancing nor detracting from parameter understanding.

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 action (reserves) and the resource (selected seats), which is specific enough. However, it does not mention the showtime context or differentiate from sibling tools like process_payment, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or how it fits into a larger workflow. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so an agent has no contextual cues for timing.

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