Бронирование мест в поезде

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

The description clearly describes the behavioral side effects beyond annotations: no money is withdrawn, seats are held for about 15 minutes, passenger count must match seat count, and child bookings are refused. This gives the agent realistic expectations without contradicting the 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 dense but every sentence adds essential value: core behavior, parameter formats, passenger mapping, child restriction, and the separate payment step. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the most important behavior.

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?

The description covers everything an agent needs to call the tool correctly: input semantics, passenger specification, seat/passenger alignment, constraints, and the wasmer next step. The presence of an output schema means return values do not need to be described in the text.

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?

Input schema provides near the parameter descriptions: seats and train_id have no descriptions, and schema coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by defining train_id as coming from train_search, seats with exact formatted examples like seats="03/10,03/12", and passengers with both "me" and full JSON examples including all needed fields.

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: booking seats on a train. It distinguishes itself from related tools by stating it does not charge money and holds seats for about 15 minutes, and it references train_search and train_seats for the required identifiers and format.

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 tells the agent where to get train_id and seats, how to specify passengers, and how the list order maps to seats. It also explicitly states when not to use it: children under 18 are not supported via MCP and require the app. A clear routing to train_pay for payment is included.

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