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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two key traits: the action is irreversible ('Permanently') and a confirm guard prevents accidental execution. It does not mention auth/permission requirements, refund side effects, or idempotency, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, and the irreversible nature plus the confirm requirement are front-loaded ahead of the optional-prerequisite hint. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, guard, and the recommended pre-step. It is largely complete, though it omits what happens on failure or what the cancellation returns (refund/charge confirmation).

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'Must be true' guard semantics for confirm. The description restates the confirm requirement but adds no format or value detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently cancel a booking') and immediately distinguishes the operation from sibling reads like get_booking and get_cancellation_quote through the word 'Permanently'. The scope is unambiguous without consulting the schema.

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?

Names the prerequisite alternative explicitly ('Use get_cancellation_quote first to see the charge') and states the gating condition ('Requires confirm=true'). The agent knows both the sequencing and the guard needed before invoking.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core trait (re-validation returning current price) and a booking precondition, but omits error behavior, idempotency, auth requirements, and whether the returned price is held.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded and immediately followed by the critical booking precondition.

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 tool is simple (one required param, full schema coverage), and the description covers its purpose, input source, precondition, and that it returns a current price. It lacks detail on the returned price shape per rateKey and error behavior, but is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 the schema description already says 'One or more rateKeys from search_hotels to re-validate.' The tool description repeats this without adding syntax, format, or per-key return meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Re-validate) and resource (rateKeys) plus the outcome (authoritative current price). It also distinguishes itself from search_hotels by naming it as the source of rateKeys and from create_booking by stating its precondition role.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Required before booking when a rate's rateType is RECHECK.' This clear context tells the agent when to call it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative for non-RECHECK rates.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses the non-obvious two-phase quoting/committing behavior and the price-tolerance re-confirmation loop, which the schema alone would not make clear. It omits irreversibility/permissions/payment consequences and the fact that a successful second call creates a real reservation, which are material for a mutation tool.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the critical first-vs-second-call distinction is front-loaded before the tolerance caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry return-value expectations; it conveys that the first call yields a live price and the second commits, but not what a committed booking returns (reference, status) or failure modes. Adequate for the happy path, incomplete for the full call cycle.

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 88%, so the schema already documents acceptedNet's quote-then-commit semantics and tolerance. The description reinforces the acceptedNet usage but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Book a rate') and immediately scopes it with the two-step surface-and-reconfirm protocol. An agent can distinguish this committing action from the sibling read tools (search_hotels, check_rate) without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing: call once WITHOUT acceptedNet to get a price, then again WITH acceptedNet set to that price to commit, and notes re-surfacing when price moves beyond tolerance. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g. check_rate) or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' correctly signals a non-mutating read and 'including its current status' hints at what is returned, but nothing is said about authorization, behavior for unknown or expired references, or error handling.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, with the operation and lookup key front-loaded. Nothing needs to be trimmed and nothing is buried.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema this is only marginally sufficient. Since no output schema exists, the description should describe what the returned booking looks like beyond a bare mention of 'current status', leaving a gap an agent cannot fill from structured 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 coverage is 100%: the single 'reference' parameter is already documented in the schema with an example format ('1-8278844'). The description names the parameter's role but adds no syntax or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve), resource (booking), and lookup key (by reference), plus the salient payload element (current status). It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as cancel_booking, create_booking, or get_cancellation_quote, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus cancel_booking, get_cancellation_quote, or create_booking. 'By reference' implies it operates on an existing booking, but no prerequisites, alternates, or when-not conditions are given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the single most important trait: this is a read-only simulation with no state change ('booking remains active'). It does not cover error behavior for an invalid reference, permission needs, or whether the quoted charge is guaranteed at cancellation time.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the non-destructive guarantee front-loaded in caps for emphasis. Nothing here is redundant.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool this is close to complete, and 'return the cancellation charge' hints at the return value despite no output schema. It could still say more about what the quote contains or how failures are reported.

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 100% for the single 'reference' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, validation, or lookup semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (return) and resource (the cancellation charge for a booking) and immediately scopes it as a simulation that does not cancel. This cleanly separates it from the sibling cancel_booking, which an agent could otherwise confuse it with.

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 makes the usage context clear — this is the preview path, the booking stays active — which implies 'use before deciding to cancel'. It does not explicitly name cancel_booking as the alternative or state when a quote is unavailable, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does signal a read-only 'static content' retrieval and lists the returned fields, which gives some transparency. However, it omits whether codes must first come from search_hotels, whether unknown codes error or return empty, and any rate or language limitations.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with scope ('one or more hotels') followed by the payload list. No filler or restated name; slightly dense but earns its words.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned static fields (description, images, facilities, address, coordinates, phones, boards), which is what an agent needs. Only the absence of any usage routing or failure behavior keeps it short of complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the key semantic that hotelCodes accepts 'one or more' hotels, matching the integer-or-array schema, but adds nothing about language or maxImages beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('full static content for one or more hotels') and enumerates the content returned, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_hotels_content, whose name suggests overlapping content, leaving some ambiguity about which to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no mention of alternatives despite two other sibling tools (search_hotels, list_hotels_content) that plausibly overlap. The agent must infer that this is the detail-fetch step after a search, which is reasonable but unstated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: this is a code-lookup that feeds search_hotels rather than a search itself. It implies a safe read but never states that the operation is non-mutating or mentions rate limits or result-count behavior beyond the schema's limit field.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by how to use the output. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a simple three-parameter list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the definition says what comes back (destination codes) and how to consume it. It stops just short of describing pagination/limit interaction or the shape of each returned item, which keeps it from a 5.

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 100%, so countryCode, nameContains, and limit are all documented in the schema itself. The description only restates country scoping and the optional name filter, adding no format or semantics beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list destination codes) plus the scoping constraint (for a country, optional name filter). The 'Hotelbeds destination codes' phrasing and the downstream tie to search_hotels make it immediately distinguishable from lookup siblings like get_hotel_details or list_hotels_content.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use the result: 'Use the code as destinationCode in search_hotels,' which routes it correctly in the booking flow. It does not name a competing alternative or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Static hotel portfolio' usefully signals read-only, non-live content (no rates or availability), but it never states the operation is non-mutating outright, nor does it describe pagination/limit behavior or any auth requirements. Partial coverage for a read tool.

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?

A single em-dash-delimited sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then lists outputs. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description wisely enumerates the returned fields, and with no annotations it correctly frames the data as static. For a simple three-parameter, zero-required list tool this is close to sufficient; only pagination behavior and permission expectations remain unstated.

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 100% and each parameter already documents itself, including the mutually exclusive 'provide this OR' relationship. The description's 'destination or set of hotel codes' restates that without adding format, syntax, or defaulting detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Browse the static hotel portfolio') and enumerates the returned fields (names, categories, coordinates, addresses), so the agent knows this is a content lookup rather than a live-availability query. It does not explicitly name the near-neighbor siblings search_hotels or get_hotel_details, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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 and schema together convey the two entry modes (by destination or by hotel codes), which implies when to reach for it. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer search_hotels, get_hotel_details, or check_rate instead, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only states that results include bookable rateKeys. It omits authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, and what happens when no hotels are available.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, followed by a brief return-value note.

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?

For a 10-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It lacks usage guidance, result semantics beyond 'bookable rateKeys', and any workflow relationship to siblings like check_rate or create_booking.

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 100%, so all 10 parameters are already documented. The description repeats destinationCode/hotelCodes, dates, and occupancy without adding syntax, defaults, or format details beyond the schema.

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 (Search) and resource (hotel availability) with the scope (destination code or hotel codes, dates, occupancy). It implies differentiation from content-only siblings, but does not explicitly name any alternative tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as check_rate or list_hotels_content. The only usage hint is the schema's 'Provide this OR hotelCodes' constraint, which is already in structured data.

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