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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: both the reference and the creating email are mandatory, and the reference alone will not resolve. That composite-key requirement is exactly the kind of detail annotations cannot carry.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, prerequisite second. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

Adequate for a simple read tool: with no output schema the description needn't explain the return shape, and annotations already establish safety. The only missing piece is any hint about what the status response contains, which is minor.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does the heavy lifting by mapping the bare parameters (token_reserva, email) to concepts and stating that the email must be the one used at creation. It stops short of giving the token's format or where to find it, but compensates well for undocumented params.

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?

Names a specific verb (obtener el estado) and resource (una solicitud ya hecha), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like crear_reserva or consultar_precio, but the distinction is inferable from the resource.

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?

Usage is only implied: this is the tool to use once a reservation already exists. No alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not condition is given, which is the main gap for routing against crear_reserva.

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