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

The description frames this as a pure read ('Relit... par son identifiant'), but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, meaning the agent must treat it as potentially state-changing. The description never discloses what side effect justifies that hint, so it actively misleads about the operation's safety profile.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states verb, resource, qualifier and key with zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a get tool, though it is terse to the point of under-specification given the nested 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 tool with a nested object parameter, no output schema, and a crowded sibling set, the description omits usage routing, side effects, and any explanation of the nested 'booking'/'meta' structure. What exists is accurate but far too thin to call the definition complete.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it only adds the bare hint that the session is identified by an identifier. The nested 'booking' object with its required 'id' field and the opaque 'meta' object are left entirely unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Relit une session de réservation ouverte') plus the lookup key ('par son identifiant'), so an agent understands this retrieves an existing open session rather than creating or updating one. It does not explicitly name the alternatives (create_booking_session, update_booking_session), but the read verb plus the get_ name separates it from its write siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternative named, despite eleven siblings including get_stay, get_check_in, fetch and search that could plausibly overlap. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is for reloading an in-progress booking session.

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