select_room

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 mentions that the tool 'initiates the booking flow,' implying a mutation or state change, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if parameters are invalid, or if it's reversible. For a tool that likely modifies booking state, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise sentences with zero waste: 'Select a specific room type to proceed to booking. Initiates the booking flow for the chosen room.' It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently conveys purpose without redundancy.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or what 'initiates the booking flow' entails (e.g., does it reserve the room?). For a tool that likely triggers a booking process, more context is needed to guide the agent 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly (e.g., hotelId, roomId, dates, adults, rooms). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or default behaviors. 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 tool's purpose: 'Select a specific room type to proceed to booking. Initiates the booking flow for the chosen room.' It specifies the verb ('select') and resource ('room type'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_rooms' (which retrieves room options) and 'checkout' (which completes booking). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'modify_reservation' or 'get_reservation', which are related but distinct actions.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'proceed to booking' and 'initiates the booking flow,' suggesting this tool is used after room selection and before checkout. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'modify_reservation' or prerequisites such as needing prior hotel search results. No exclusions or clear alternatives are stated.

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