travel_get_booking_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (hotel, dates, amount, currency, status) and enumerates the possible status values (confirmed, pending, cancelled, not_found). This gives the agent a good sense of behavior, though it doesn't explicitly state read-only semantics, it's strongly implied by 'Retrieve'.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys action, input, and return details 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?

The description is complete for a simple read-only status tool: it states the purpose, the input provenance, the returned fields, and the possible statuses including an error-like 'not_found'. No output schema exists, so the description appropriately summarizes the response contents. There are no missing critical details for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for bookingId with 'Booking ID from travel_book_hotel.' The description repeats this same information ('using the bookingId returned by travel_book_hotel') without adding new semantic meaning. Therefore, the description adds no value beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('current status of a hotel booking'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like travel_search_hotels and travel_book_hotel. It also specifies the input source (bookingId from travel_book_hotel), making the tool's role in the booking flow unambiguous.

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 states the usage context: retrieving status after booking, using the bookingId from travel_book_hotel. This provides clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The guidance is clear enough for an agent to select it vs. other travel tools.

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