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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: confirm=false is a true no-op dry run, confirm=true is irreversible, and it details the side effects (card hold release, refund via the property's own Stripe account, date release, emails to both parties). This is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs before an irreversible action.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the safety protocol, followed by side effects. No filler; every sentence carries operational meaning.

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 still tells the agent what confirm=false returns (the refund under the property's policy) and what confirm=true does across every affected system, which is sufficient to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for 'confirm' — explaining both modes and the default-false preview behavior — and confirms booking_id/guest_email are needed. It does not explain formats or where to obtain the booking_id (maxLength 20), a minor remaining 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 verb and resource ('Cancel a Bookd booking for the guest') and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like booking_status and request_booking. The scope (guest-side cancellation) is unambiguous.

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?

Prescribes an explicit two-step protocol: call with confirm=false first to preview the refund, then call with confirm=true only after the guest explicitly agrees. It also gates when cancellation should happen at all, leaving nothing to inference.

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