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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it explains the polling-vs-webhook lifecycle and that the public response omits the providerPayment field. That is useful disclosure the annotations cannot convey.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no filler. Every clause carries information about when to call it or what the response contains.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of hinting at returns, which it does by mentioning the voucher and the omitted providerPayment field. Combined with the lifecycle guidance, this is close to complete for a single-parameter read tool, with only the exact response shape left implicit.

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 bookingId parameter is already documented as the dispatcher booking ID from POST /experiences/bookings. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource: poll booking status for an experience booking, or retrieve the voucher once confirmed. It clearly identifies the resource (experience booking) and its two operational modes. It stops short of naming a sibling it is not, e.g. getExperienceTour, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

It states the two conditions under which the tool is used: while the booking is pending confirmation (poll) and after the webhook confirms (retrieve voucher). That is clear usage context. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or an exclusion, so it does not reach 5.

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