Детали поездки

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description adds meaningful behavioral context: for rail it shows carriage, seats, and e-registration status; for air it shows route and documents; for hotel it shows dates, room, meals, and guests. It also clarifies that file generation is delegated to travel_ticket_file, a key boundary for agents.

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 compact and well organized: first line states the resource and categories, second line describes category-specific detail fields, third line routes ticket-file requests to a sibling tool. There is no repetition or filler, and each sentence adds new information.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description does not need to spell out return types. It covers the main invocation context: which order_id to use, what type-specific detail is shown, and where to get the actual ticket file. It does not mention trip-level status or payment-related context, but those seem out of scope for this tool.

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 provides only a bare 'order_id' string with no further description, so the description must carry the meaning. It does this by saying the order_id comes from the orders() list for travel orders, and is the identifier of a specific trip. This is sufficient for the single parameter, though an example or format hint would strengthen it further.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns details of a travel order by orderId, covering hotel, train, and airplane. It also names the sibling travel_ticket_file as the path for obtaining a ticket file, which helps distinguish this tool from nearby alternatives.

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 gives clear context: use it when you have a travel order ID and need hotel/train/air details. It explicitly points to travel_ticket_file when the agent needs a ticket or receipt saved to a file. It does not list explicit exclusion cases like payments or bookings, so it is not a perfect 5.

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