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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing the PIN ownership requirement and the conditional payment-state return behavior.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and then adds the most important usage detail and return-value nuance.

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 simple read-only lookup with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description covers the essential call context, ownership proof, and return highlights. It could mention error handling for an invalid PIN or missing reservation, but that is a minor gap given the focused scope.

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 100%, with each parameter already explained, including the reservation ID format and PIN provenance. The description adds no new per-parameter semantics, only reinforcing that the PIN proves ownership, so the baseline score applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a booking by its reservation ID.' It clearly distinguishes this retrieval operation from sibling tools like booboooking_book, booboooking_cancel, and the availability-check tools.

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 explains the key usage constraint: the PIN from the original booking response is required to prove ownership. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the retrieval intent and required credentials make the usage context clear.

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