get_seat_map

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 implies a read-only view operation but does not explicitly state it is read-only or disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, prerequisites (e.g., a flight must already be selected), or error conditions. The description only lists the content shown, which is minimal for transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the action and the output content. It could be slightly tighter by removing 'available and occupied' since 'seat map' implies it, but it's still concise 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 simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool shows, and the context of a 'selected flight' covers the precondition. It does not detail fee amounts or how to interpret seat types, but that is beyond what a brief description should provide.

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 fully documents the single optional parameter flightNumber with a description (100% coverage). The description's phrase 'for the selected flight' loosely relates to the parameter but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb ('View') and resource ('seat map'), and specifies the scope: 'for the selected flight'. It also lists what the seat map shows (available/occupied seats, seat types, fees), distinguishing it from sibling tools like select_seats or get_flight_details.

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 phrase 'for the selected flight' provides clear context on when this tool is applicable, but there is no explicit comparison to alternatives or exclusions. It is clear that this is for viewing the seat map rather than selecting or modifying seats, but it does not explicitly say 'use this instead of X'.

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