get_booking_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool as a read-only status check (implied by 'Check'), and details the possible status values with explanations, including time estimates (e.g., 'up to 45s' for fulfilling) and outcomes (e.g., 'payment hold cancelled' for failed). This adds valuable context beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second explains the parameter, the third describes the return, and the list details status values without redundancy. It is efficient and well-structured.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, return values, and status details, providing all necessary information for an agent to use the tool correctly without gaps.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that booking_id is 'returned by book_slot', clarifying its origin and purpose. This compensates fully for the schema's lack of documentation, providing essential context for the single parameter.

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 with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status of a booking'), and distinguishes it from siblings like book_slot (which creates bookings) and search_slots (which finds available slots). It directly addresses what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 provides clear context by referencing book_slot as the source for booking_id, implying this tool should be used after a booking is created. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_supplier_info for supplier details, which could help avoid misuse.

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