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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read. The description adds real value beyond the annotation by enumerating what the response contains (product, times, participants, options, price, paid amount, status) and noting the status enum values, which helps the agent interpret results.

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 front-loaded sentence pairing the core operation with the returned fields, plus a short endpoint reference. Every clause earns its place with no padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by listing returned fields and status values, so an agent knows what to expect. It could be slightly stronger on pagination/auth specifics, but it is complete for a simple single-record getter.

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 bookingNumber, expandCustomer, and expandParticipants are all documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or format detail for the parameters beyond the schema.

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 (get) and resource (one booking) scoped by booking number, and enumerates the fields returned. It is clearly distinguishable from bookeo_list_bookings, though it does not explicitly name the list tool as the alternative.

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 'by its booking number' implies the single-record lookup context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs bookeo_list_bookings or bookeo_search_matching_slots, and no stated prerequisites or conditions.

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