Бронирование мест

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds behavioral context beyond those hints: it creates an order, does not collect money yet, and unpaid reservations expire automatically. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the core behavior and then provides only necessary clarifying details about seat formats, seat_type, and payment flow. Every sentence adds value.

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 existence of an output schema and the surrounding tool flow, the description is largely complete. It covers the key workflow, seat formatting, differentiation from ticket_pay, and the need to show the total before payment. The main residual gap is the meaning of the identified order fields.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the semantic burden. It does explain kind, seats, and seat_type well, but leaves event_id, slot_id, and object_id unexplained. Also, the Russian kind values in the description may not map cleanly to the schema's 'movie' default.

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 books seats and creates an order, explicitly noting that it does NOT pay. It distinguishes itself from ticket_pay and sets the correct expectation for a booking operation.

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 explicitly says that payment is handled separately by ticket_pay and that unpaid bookings auto-cancel, which guides the agent on when and how to use this tool. It doesn't discuss all sibling alternatives like ticket_cancel, but the critical workflow distinction is clear.

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