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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces this by enumerating actions it cannot perform. It also adds an important behavioral requirement: the need for hold ID plus the same verified traveler context/assertion or secure booking handoff, which goes beyond the annotation hints.

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 sentences with no filler: what it returns, what it requires, and what it cannot do. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded, and every sentence 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 sufficiently enumerates the return content (status, stay, price, payment schedule, cancellation terms) and the access prerequisites. It could mention error behavior or explicitly contrast with get_traveler_handoff_status, but given rich schema descriptions and annotations, the key information for correct invocation is present.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how the parameters relate: hold ID plus either travelerAssertion/guestEmail or agentHandoffId is required for access, which clarifies the authentication model not fully apparent from individual schema fields.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a precise resource: the current status, stay, price, payment schedule, and cancellation terms for a reservation previously created through ATA. This clearly distinguishes it from creation tools like create_provisional_booking and from other getters like get_traveler_handoff_status.

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 gives clear context: use for reservations previously created through ATA, and it explicitly excludes mutation capabilities ('cannot change, pay, cancel, check in, or check out a reservation'). It does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly, but the precondition and read-only scope imply when to choose this tool.

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