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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations by explicitly stating that client contact details and intake responses are excluded from the result, and by emphasizing the grant-authorized scope. This gives the agent important information about data privacy boundaries without contradicting any annotation.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and scope, and the second adds a meaningful exclusion. Every word earns its place, and the description is easy to scan quickly.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, all parameters documented, and safety annotations in place, the description is largely complete for a simple status lookup. It could mention when to use it relative to siblings or note error semantics, but those are not critical for a read-only retrieval tool with rich structured metadata around it.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond restating that the booking reference must be grant-authorized, which the booking_ref and grant parameter descriptions already cover. 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Returns') plus a concrete resource: 'current status, time, service and provider for one grant-authorized booking reference.' It also clarifies what is excluded ('Client contact details and intake responses are excluded'), which sharply differentiates it from sibling mutation tools like cancel_booking or reschedule_booking. An agent can tell this is a read-only status lookup without ambiguity.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a context through 'grant-authorized booking reference,' but it does not state when this should be preferred over get_reschedule_options, find_available_services, or any other sibling. No when-not or alternative routing is mentioned.

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