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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by clarifying that this is a read of published terms and explicitly states it does not confirm a booking, which is a useful behavioral boundary beyond the 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first lists what is read, the second adds a caveat about service-specific terms, and the third clarifies a non-action. No fluff.

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 tool has a simple schema with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the main behavioral boundary (no booking confirmation) and the scope of terms. It could mention that locale is the only parameter, but the schema already does that.

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%, but there is only one parameter (locale) with an enum and a default. The description does not mention locale at all, so it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. However, the schema itself is fully self-explanatory for this single parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool reads current booking preparation terms, account requirements, guest booking, and minimum lead time. It also explicitly says it does not confirm a booking, which distinguishes it from booking-related siblings like prepare_offer.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: to read current terms before confirmation. It also notes that service-specific cancellation and waiting terms must be checked on the current offer, implying this tool is not for those. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for those cases.

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