get_flights_bookings

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's value is in the extra constraints it discloses: confirmed bookings only, owner-scoping, sandbox/live isolation by API key, and the rule that airlinePnr and lastName are required together. Pagination behavior for a list endpoint is not addressed, which is the main remaining gap.

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 heading structure is front-loaded and scannable, but for a two-parameter tool it is oversized: the PNR + last-name lookup is repeated in the Overview, When to Use, Key Features, and Quick Start sections. Several sentences restate prior content rather than earning their place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it names the response fields (status, journey, passengers, order reference, pricing) and the exact response shape (data array with one element containing a bookings array). Combined with the scoping and lookup rules, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and both parameters are already documented there, including the 'required together' coupling. The description restates that same coupling in prose, adding little syntactic or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 Overview states a specific verb+resource with scope: 'List confirmed flight bookings owned by the authenticated user,' plus the optional single-booking lookup. It is clear, but it never names or distinguishes itself from closely named siblings like listBookings, searchBookings, or get_bookings, so an agent must infer which list tool applies.

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 'When to Use' section gives three concrete scenarios (My bookings page, PNR lookup, booking management) and the Quick Start clarifies that no params lists all while both params retrieve one booking. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or a comparison against the sibling list/search tools.

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