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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior. The description adds two genuinely useful facts beyond them: the meaning of each returned state (not present in the schema, which has zero enums) and the privacy guarantee that no personal data is returned.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its state vocabulary, then the prerequisite token, then the privacy note. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is padded.

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, return values need no elaboration, and the description covers the two things the schema cannot: the semantics of each status value and the data-protection guarantee. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 and the schema already says 'The status_token from create_booking'. The description repeats that same provenance with no additional format, length, or sourcing nuance, so this is the baseline case where structured data does the work.

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 resource ('the state of a booking request') and explicitly ties it to the create_booking lifecycle, enumerating the four possible states (received, confirmed, completed, cancelled). An agent can distinguish this read-only status lookup from create_booking and get_prices_and_schedule without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly implies the usage context: this is the follow-up call to create_booking, and it requires the status_token that create_booking returned. It provides a clear when-to-use signal but never names an alternative tool or states an explicit exclusion, so it stops short of the top band.

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