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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful output-scope context: contact data and anamnesis are deliberately withheld, which helps an agent understand the privacy boundary of the response.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and key requirement, then the privacy exclusion. Every clause carries information; no 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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be restated, and the description usefully clarifies what is excluded from the output. The only gap is the absence of explicit when-to-use guidance relative to sibling read tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both the booking_token and the language enum. The description reinforces that the key is private and scoped to one's own appointment, but adds no syntax or handling detail beyond what the schema provides; 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?

The description names a specific verb (lesen) and resource (Terminablauf und Anfrageentscheidungen) and ties it to the private booking key. It is clear enough to distinguish from write-oriented siblings like salon_request_change or salon_confirm_booking, though it does not name any sibling 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?

Usage is implied through the required private booking key, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as salon_get_quote or salon_request_cancellation. The conditions are left for the agent to infer.

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