digital_key

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 retrieves information and instructions (implying a read-only operation) but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid confirmation number), or what the output includes (e.g., key status, activation steps). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence clearly stating the purpose. The second sentence adds useful context about Digital Key functionality without redundancy. Both sentences earn their place, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for key points).

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 (involves reservation-specific data with no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., key status, QR codes, instructions) or handle edge cases (e.g., reservations without digital key support). For a tool with no structured output and zero annotations, more detail is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively.

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 the parameter 'confirmationNumber' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying it's for a Hilton reservation, which is already covered by the schema's description. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context (e.g., format examples or validation rules).

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: 'Get digital room key information and activation instructions for a Hilton reservation.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('digital room key information and activation instructions'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_reservation' or 'get_rooms' by focusing on digital key functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get_hotel_details' might also provide access-related info).

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., needing a reservation or being logged in), exclusions (e.g., not for non-Hilton properties), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_reservation' (which might include key info). The context is implied (Hilton reservations) but lacks explicit usage rules.

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