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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, and the description adds useful context by stating that retrieving status does not repeat the booking. This addresses a common concern after uncertain mutations and is genuine value beyond the annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences: scope and state categories, a domain clarification, and usage guidance. No filler, no repetition of schema or annotations, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 read-only annotations, a fully described booking_id, an output schema, and clear invocation timing, nothing essential is missing. An agent can confidently select and invoke this tool 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?

The sole parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its origin from book_flight and its distinction from an airline confirmation number. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate at 100% schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('Gondola flight booking'), and scope ('owner-scoped state') while enumerating the state categories. The flight-specific framing and 'not an airline confirmation number' distinction separate it clearly from generic get_booking and vehicle booking siblings.

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?

Explicitly prescribes when to use it: after book_flight or when a booking mutation had an uncertain outcome. It also clarifies that retrieving status does not repeat the booking. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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