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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the baseline is lower, but the description adds substantial context: read-only against the database, safe to poll after a checkout timeout, returns guest PII, requires Bearer token auth, and is rate-limited per token. It even explains the security behavior of a mismatched reservationId/guestToken pair. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Despite its length, every sentence earns its place. The definition is front-loaded with purpose, then usage, exclusions, auth, safety, and parameter semantics, with no redundant or filler content. The density is justified by the tool's security-sensitive nature and the need to distinguish it from many siblings.

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?

The description covers the full operational picture: purpose, when to use, when not to use, alternatives, authentication, rate limits, read-only safety, PII exposure, parameter provenance, and failure semantics. Since an output schema exists, the absence of return-format details is not a gap. Nothing an agent needs for correct invocation is missing.

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%, giving a baseline of 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: reservationId is the booking UUID returned by hemmabo_booking_checkout or hemmabo_booking_create and 'never a propertyId,' while guestToken is 'the secret issued with that same booking.' It also states that a mismatched pair reveals nothing, which is critical security semantics not present in the schema.

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 opening sentence precisely states the verb, resource, and identifier: 'Retrieve current status and full details of an existing booking by reservationId.' It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming the tools not to use (hemmabo_search_properties, hemmabo_search_availability, hemmabo_booking_quote), leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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 description gives concrete when-to-use guidance: 'Use to confirm checkout/create succeeded or before cancel/reschedule.' It also provides explicit exclusions and alternatives, saying 'Do NOT use for property discovery, availability, or pricing — use hemmabo_search_properties, hemmabo_search_availability, or hemmabo_booking_quote for those.' This leaves no inference required.

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