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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is for viewing (implying read-only), but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs (e.g., whether login is required), rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if parameters are missing. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate, scoring 2 for minimal transparency beyond the implied read operation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('View the aircraft seat map') and specifies key details without waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured, deserving a score of 5.

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 (viewing seat maps with two optional parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and data shown but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and output information. This results in a score of 3, as it's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in context.

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%, with both parameters documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify the relationship between flightNumber and flightId or when one is preferred). According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description, which applies here.

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 the verb 'View' and resource 'aircraft seat map', specifying what information is shown (available/occupied seats, seat types, upgrade pricing). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'select_seats' (which implies action) and 'get_flight_details' (which is more general), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This earns a 4 for being clear but lacking explicit sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a booking is required), timing (e.g., before seat selection), or exclusions. With siblings like 'select_seats' and 'get_flight_details' available, this omission is a significant gap, resulting in a score of 2 for no usage guidance.

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