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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: the prerequisite that both reference and email are mandatory, the instruction never to guess either, and that it points the user to a manage-booking page for changes.

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 dense sentences that are front-loaded with the use case, then returns, then exclusions and prerequisites. No filler; every clause carries routing or requirement information.

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 3-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and an output schema (so return values need not be detailed), the description covers purpose, prerequisites, exclusions, and routing to the manage-booking alternative. Nothing an agent needs 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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by giving concrete booking_id formats (TOKY-1018-0427, BUS-FR-1018-0427) and stressing that both reference and email must be present.

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 a specific action (look up the status of) and a precise resource (an existing OlaChill booking, order or quotation request), and its read-only lookup nature clearly separates it from the search_* and request_* 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use (user asks about an existing booking and supplies reference plus email), explicit when-not-to-use (not for finding new products, not for changing/cancelling), and names the correct alternative for changes (the manage-booking page it returns).

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