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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the description only needs to add context — and it does, by enumerating the proposal payload (time, phone/video/on-site location, price incl. VAT, deposit/deadline, cancellation terms). It adds no error or failure-mode context (e.g. what happens if the interpreter is no longer available), which keeps it short of a 5.

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 short, front-loaded sentences: safety flag, payload contents, workflow rule. No filler; 'Read-only' slightly duplicates the annotation but costs one word and reinforces the key constraint.

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 only two required parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description carries the important parts: what is returned and how to use it in the approval flow. The one gap is the unexplained booking_id, which the description never mentions.

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 coverage is 50%: interpreter_id is documented in the schema as coming from tolk2go_interpreting_get_responses, but booking_id is undocumented anywhere. The description only alludes to interpreter_id via 'for this interpreter' and says nothing about booking_id, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific operation (preview the exact proposal that tolk2go_interpreting_select_interpreter would commit to) and enumerates the resource contents. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling mutation tool it previews, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow rule: show the preview to the customer and obtain explicit approval before calling select_interpreter. That is both a when-to-use and an implicit when-not (do not call select first).

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