checkout

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 effectively describes the tool's dual behavior (completing vs. checking state) and the critical requirement for user confirmation before finalizing. However, it lacks details on error conditions, response format, or side effects like payment processing.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and critical usage warning. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 complexity (conditional completion behavior) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description does well by explaining the dual functionality and confirmation requirement. However, it doesn't describe what 'current booking state' includes or potential error scenarios, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool with significant consequences.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but it does emphasize the critical importance of the 'confirm' parameter's usage context, which provides some value beyond the schema's technical description.

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 a specific verb ('complete') and resource ('booking reservation'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'modify_reservation' or 'cancel_reservation'. It explicitly defines the action of finalizing a booking, which is distinct from other reservation-related tools.

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 on when to use the tool: set confirm=true only with explicit user confirmation to complete the booking, and use confirm=false or omitted to check the current state. This clearly differentiates it from alternatives like 'modify_reservation' or 'get_reservation' by specifying the conditional behavior.

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