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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavior disclosure; 'Look up' conveys a read-only operation and the manage-token context hints at authorization. It stops short of stating side-effect-free behavior, error/not-found cases, or any rate limits, so it provides moderate transparency.

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?

A single 24-word sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the token-source clarification parenthetically. Every clause earns its place; no redundant wording.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details—what identifies the booking and what fields the caller can expect. It could be more complete with an explicit note about when a manage token is available or when to use get_booking_page instead, but overall it is not missing critical inputs.

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 0%, and the description compensates by explaining the token's real-world provenance: the code in a yoya.ai/b/<token> link. For a single-parameter tool this fully clarifies what to pass and where to find it, beyond the bare minLength constraint.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Look up'), names the resource ('a booking'), and identifies the exact input ('manage token'). It also states the purpose ('see its status and time'), which clearly separates it from the booking/availability/listing siblings.

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 implies a use case—use when you have a manage-token link and need booking status/time—but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over get_booking_page, book_meeting, or list_available_times, nor provides exclusions. This is implied usage, not clear routing guidance.

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