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

With readOnlyHint=true already present, the description still adds meaningful behavioral context: it explains the meaning of `mapless: true`, notes that menu ticket prices appear only 'where present', and clarifies that `products` is the vendor goods list from the app's booth sheet. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is three compact sentences with no filler. The most important information (what the tool returns) is front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place: contents, special flag meaning, and accepted inputs.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the key response fields and defines the `mapless` flag, giving an agent enough understanding of what to expect. For a simple read-only lookup with two fully documented parameters, nothing essential 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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), and the description essentially restates that a booth id or name and an event id/slug/name are accepted. It adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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's purpose: 'The full public card for one booth' with a detailed list of contents. It distinguishes itself from the sibling list tool events_booths by emphasizing a single booth and specifying accepted inputs (booth id or name).

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 gives clear usage context: this tool returns the full detail card for a single boothcookie, and explains that it accepts either a booth id/name and an event id/slug/name. It does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like events_booths or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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