get_booking_options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-like nature ('List') and the source of the required token, but it does not mention return format, potential errors, or side effects. Given the simplicity of the operation, this is adequate but not detailed.

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 composed of two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose; the second provides a necessary usage instruction. No wasted words.

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 only one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential aspects: what it does, what input is needed, and where that input comes from. It is complete for a tool of this simplicity.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly explains that booking_token comes from search_flights or get_return_flights results, adding meaning beyond the schema's type/name. This compensates well for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('where to book a selected flight and the price at each provider'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_flights by focusing on the booking step, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite: pass a booking_token from search_flights (one-way) or get_return_flights. This gives clear context on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the instruction is specific enough to guide correct usage.

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