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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two non-obvious traits the annotations lack: the required `bookings:write` scope (notable precisely because the call is read-only) and the presence of an untrusted_fields block with an explicit trust instruction, which is meaningful prompt-injection guidance an agent would otherwise miss.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no redundant restatement of the title or schema. The final sentence packs both the untrusted_fields location and the security instruction economically, though the two clauses are dense enough that a reader could mistake 'untrusted_fields' for an input parameter.

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?

For a 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should say more about what a preview returns — validation errors, a rendered request, availability conflicts — beyond merely naming untrusted_fields. Auth requirements and the no-side-effect guarantee are covered, but the agent is left guessing what it learns from the call and how to act on the result.

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% across all 12 parameters, so per-field meaning is already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics — the untrusted_fields reference points at return data rather than helping an agent decide how to fill dj, event_id, extras, or the time-zone fields — so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 and resource ('Check a DJ request') and clarifies the defining scope ('without sending it'), which separates it from the write-side siblings request_booking and book_dj. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 phrase 'without sending it' implies this is a dry-run step before actually requesting a booking, which is useful implicit guidance. However, no alternative tool is named and no condition is given for when to prefer this over request_booking, book_dj, or check_dj_link, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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