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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the privacy guarantee ('No personal data'), the token-based access model, and the full set of possible states including 'unknown'. No permissions, rate limits, or error behavior are discussed, keeping it short of 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?

Front-loads the purpose and pairs it with the dependency in the first clause, then covers returns and privacy in two more compact sentences. The parenthetical state list is long but each item is load-bearing 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, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so completely by enumerating every state and noting the conditional payment deadline field. Combined with the privacy guarantee, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 both schema properties already state they come 'from request_booking', so the description's same point adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 ('Get the public status of a booking request draft') and ties it to its origin ('created by request_booking'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like get_rental_details. The enumerated return states make the scope unambiguous.

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?

Makes clear this is the follow-up call to request_booking and requires the draft_id and status_token that request_booking produced, so an agent knows when to reach for it. It stops short of naming explicit exclusions or alternatives (e.g., what to use for a confirmed booking's rental details).

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