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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds authorization behavior beyond that: access is scoped to the caller's own booking and foreign IDs are rejected, which is genuinely useful context not present in 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the access constraint. Every sentence carries information and there is no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 there is no need to explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description adds the key authorization framing; the only minor gap is not routing the agent to coworking_list_bookings for obtaining valid IDs, though the schema covers 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 100%, so both parameters (booking_id and language) are already documented in the schema, including the note that booking_id comes from coworking_list_bookings. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format details, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (lesen) and resource (eigene Coworking-Buchung), and adds that the response includes the actual decisions on change requests, which is a distinct content hint. It is clearly a single-booking read as opposed to coworking_list_bookings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 ownership constraint 'Fremde Kennungen erlauben keinen Zugriff' functions as a when-not condition: the agent learns the tool only works for its own booking IDs. It does not explicitly name the list tool as the way to obtain valid IDs or discuss alternatives, but the negative condition gives solid usage direction.

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