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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: this is a single non-blocking poll rather than a wait loop, plus what each terminal status means (venue declined vs. no answer in time). It does not discuss rate limits or what happens for an unknown/expired reservationId, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences with no waste; the core behavior comes first and the sibling routing is appended as a secondary clause. Every element, including the parenthetical status glosses, earns its 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 usefully enumerates the possible return statuses, and for a one-parameter read-only tool the usage and safety picture is fully covered by the annotations. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single reservationId parameter is already documented as coming from request_reservation, so the description adds no parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full burden.

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 and resource ('Check a reservation's status') and enumerates the exact status domain, including parenthetical definitions for cancelled, expired and no_show. An agent can distinguish it from wait_for_reservation without opening either schema.

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 characterizes this as a one-shot, non-blocking check ('once, no waiting') and names the alternative with the selecting condition ('While waiting on a fresh request, use wait_for_reservation'). Both the when and the when-not are present.

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