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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing what the response contains (state, amounts, last cancellation date) and, importantly, what it does not contain (contacts), which sets correct expectations for a read tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the accepted identifiers, followed by the state enumeration and the contact exclusion. The list of states is long but each item is informative; there is no filler or restatement of the title.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by listing the possible statuses and the fields returned (amounts, cancellation deadline). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has what it needs; only pagination/format details for the free-form token could be tighter.

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% and the single parameter is documented as accepting either a bookingToken or a full payUrl. The description reinforces that dual form and adds provenance — the token comes from request_booking — which is meaning not present in the schema itself.

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 verb and resource (retrieving the status of a booking) and enumerates the exact states returned: awaiting deposit, awaiting guide with deadline, confirmed, cancelled, refunded. It also anchors the tool to the sibling that creates the booking (request_booking), so an agent can place it in the workflow immediately.

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 makes clear this is the follow-up to request_booking and that it works with either the bookingToken or the full payUrl. It explicitly excludes one expected use case (contact details), redirecting to WhatsApp and the booking page, which prevents a wrong call. It stops short of naming another tool as the alternative for that excluded data.

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