select_seats

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 implies a write operation ('Choose') but doesn't specify if this is a tentative hold, a confirmed booking, or requires payment. It also lacks details on permissions, error handling, or rate limits, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely modifies state.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences, both of which are essential: the first states the purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. There is no wasted verbiage, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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 complexity of a seat selection tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and a key prerequisite but lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., confirmation status) and error conditions. For a state-changing tool, this leaves room for improvement.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (e.g., 'seats' as an array of strings, 'passengerCount' with a default). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Choose specific seats') and the resource ('for passengers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_seat_map' by focusing on selection rather than viewing availability. However, it doesn't specify what happens after selection (e.g., reservation confirmation), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 explicit guidance to 'Use get_seat_map first to see availability,' which clearly indicates a prerequisite and distinguishes it from that sibling tool. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it (e.g., if seats are already booked) or alternatives like 'manage_booking,' 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.