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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds real behavioral value: the exact composed payload (invoice items, info items, additional guests) and the fact that cancelled bookings are still returned. It does not discuss rate limits or error behavior, but for a read-only getter this is solid added context.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler: what is fetched, what it includes, the status caveat, and the underlying endpoint. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned components and status coverage, so an agent knows exactly what to expect without a response schema.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents bookingId including its positive-integer constraint. The description adds nothing about the id format or source, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Fetch) and resource (one booking by id) and enumerates the payload it returns (invoice items, info items, additional guests). This clearly separates it from beds24_list_bookings and beds24_get_unit_bookings.

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 phrase 'one booking by id' implies the single-record lookup case versus the list siblings, and 'Works for any status, including cancelled' removes a common pre-call doubt. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool or stating exclusions, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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