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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose that this is an asynchronous confirmation check driven by an external payment step, plus the expected status vocabulary (pending_payment, confirmed, payment_failed). It stops short of stating polling cadence, terminal states, or whether it is read-only.

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, zero filler, with the core action first and the timing trigger second. Every clause adds information an agent needs.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool is for, when to invoke it, and sample return values. A brief note on polling behavior or terminal statuses would make it fully self-sufficient.

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% and the single booking_id parameter is fully described by the schema as the reference returned by create_booking; the description echoes that origin but adds no format or validation detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (get booking status) and explicitly ties it to create_booking, distinguishing it from browsing siblings like check_availability or hotel_info. The parenthetical status examples make the returned domain concrete.

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?

Gives a clear usage condition: poll after the human completes the Stripe card payment to confirm the reservation. It names the sequencing relative to create_booking, though it does not state when not to call it or how often to poll.

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