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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what status information is returned (online, last seen, app version, camera/printer/internet state), which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior beyond the schema.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently enumerates return fields without waste. Every clause earns its place, and the flow from what → when → how is clear.

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 an output schema present, the return values are already defined. The description adds the needed usage context (when to call, what to get first, what live status items are included), making it complete for a single-booth detail tool. It also differentiates from list_projects.

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% for the single parameter projectId, and the schema description already explains 'Project id from list_projects'. The description repeats this source hint but adds no additional syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Full detail for a single booth' with a specific verb (get) and resource (booth/project), and lists the returned fields (name, public link, currency, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from list_projects by focusing on one specific booth.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Call this when the operator asks about one specific booth, or whether a booth is working.' It also gives a prerequisite: 'Get the project id from list_projects first.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool and what steps precede it.

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