One booking in full: stage (as in list_bookings), dates, guest, price lines, the operator's payout and payout_schedule, the payments coming to the operator with their due dates (empty until the booking is paid). Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Booking id, from list_bookings. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the redundant 'Read-only' adds little. However, the description discloses a genuine behavioral nuance not in the annotations: payments are 'empty until the booking is paid,' a state-dependent return detail an agent should anticipate.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence ('One booking in full:') followed by an efficient enumeration of return fields. It is dense but each listed element earns its place, especially since no output schema exists.
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, describing return contents is the description's job and it does so thoroughly. The safety profile is covered by annotations and the param is fully documented; only edge cases (missing id, error behavior) are absent.
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 the single 'id' param is fully documented as 'Booking id, from list_bookings.' The description reinforces the list_bookings provenance but adds no format or constraint 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?
States a specific verb+resource (get one booking) and enumerates the exact contents returned: stage, dates, guest, price lines, payout, payout_schedule, and due-dated payments. It explicitly ties itself to list_bookings ('stage (as in list_bookings)'), letting an agent distinguish this single-record fetch from the list sibling.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'One booking in full' suggests fetching a single record versus list_bookings, and the id source is named. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative for adjacent lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
