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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add what they cannot. It does: the full status enum, the fields returned (dates, room, price), and the explicit privacy guarantee that no guest personal data is returned.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the safety qualifier 'Read-only' and then the identifying parameter, then the return payload. No filler, every clause carries information.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully: status enum, accompanying fields, and the explicit absence of personal data. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it supplies a concrete ID format example (BKD-AB12CD3) that the schema lacks beyond type string/maxLength 20. It does not explain the ID's origin or validation failure behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 and resource: read the status of a Bookd booking from its booking_id. It also enumerates the possible status values, which pins down exactly what 'status' means and separates it from cancel_booking and request_booking.

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 (look up a booking's current state by ID) but the description never states when to prefer this over siblings such as cancel_booking, nor any precondition like having a booking_id in hand. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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