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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does well by explaining the meaning of 'paid_awaiting_photographer_confirmation' and warning against treating that status as final. This is valuable non-obvious behavior beyond the bare tool name.

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?

The description is compact and efficient: one clear opening sentence followed by an essential status-value guide with an important caveat. Every sentence contributes directly to correct tool usage.

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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description provides the critical domain knowledge: the status values and the meaning of the ambiguous one. It does not detail error behavior or response shape, but the low complexity makes that gap minor.

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?

The schema already documents the only parameter, slug, and its origin from create_reservation. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is acceptable because schema coverage is 100%.

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 states the specific operation—checking whether a reservation has been paid and confirmed—and supplements it with the exact status values, making the tool's function unambiguous. It is easily distinguished from siblings like create_reservation or get_payment_link.

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 description clearly indicates when the tool should be used: whenever an agent needs to determine a reservation's payment and confirmation state. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the sibling context makes the intended use clear.

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