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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds critical behavioral context: entries with confirmation_required did not book autonomously and fell back to owner confirmation, and it lists the specific checks performed at commit time. The 'Auth required' note also adds operational nuance not in annotations.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose ('Authorization record...'), followed by the important behavioral caveat. Every phrase adds value.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the record's contents, the confirmation_required exception, and safety/read-only status. It stops short of stating the return shape (e.g., list vs single object), but the token parameter and purpose make that largely clear.

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% with a clear description of token (automation token from automate_lane). The main description does not address parameters, but the schema carries that weight, so no additional explanation is needed.

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?

Description clearly identifies it as an authorization record for an automation's bookings, specifying the content (checks passed, shipment id, confirmation_required flag). However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'list', so it reads more as a resource definition than an operation.

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 this is the place to inspect automation booking authorization decisions ('one entry per booking attempt'), but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_bookings or events. It mentions read-only and auth required, which helps, but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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