get_boarding_pass

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 mentions the prerequisite (check-in) which is useful context, but does not describe what happens if not checked in, whether it retrieves passes for all passengers or specific ones, or the format/limitations of the digital passes. It adds some value but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 two sentences with zero waste—each sentence earns its place by stating the purpose and prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the core function and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it states purpose, prerequisite, and distinguishes from siblings. However, it lacks details on output (what the boarding pass contains) and edge cases (e.g., multiple passengers), leaving minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (confirmationNumber and lastName). The description does not add any additional meaning or context about these parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or relationship between them. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Retrieve digital boarding pass(es)') and resource ('for a checked-in flight'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_booking or get_flight_details that handle different aspects of travel. It precisely defines the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 states when to use this tool ('Must be checked in first using check_in') and names the prerequisite tool ('check_in'), providing clear guidance on the required sequence of operations. This helps the agent understand it should not be invoked before check-in.

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