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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it explains that internal booking IDs are never accepted, that anonymous access requires a verification_token from lookup_booking scoped to a single booking, and that developer-authenticated access is scoped to their own bookings. It also states that no booking data is returned without a valid token. This gives the agent a clear model of the tool's access and failure 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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose and key constraint, and then provides necessary authentication context. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy or filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to enumerate return fields, but it still summarizes what is returned. It covers input semantics, authentication modes, scoping, and failure conditions, making the tool's behavior sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Although the schema already describes both parameters, the description adds important meaning beyond the schema: it specifies that verification_token is issued by lookup_booking, is booking-scoped, and is required for anonymous access only. It also reinforces that confirmation_number is specifically the hotel confirmation from the guest's email and not an internal ID.

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 function: looking up a reservation by the hotel confirmation number and returning full booking details. It also draws an explicit boundary by stating that internal Stayker booking IDs are never accepted or disclosed, which differentiates it from related lookup flows.

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 indicates this tool is for retrieving booking details using the guest's hotel confirmation number, and it gives clear context about authentication requirements and scoping. It does not explicitly say when to use an alternative sibling tool, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to select it.

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