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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the response shape (succeeded/failed/in-progress counts, per-channel state, error messages) and the rate budget (250 requests/day, 5/minute) that constrains polling. What's missing is guidance on how long states persist or when polling becomes pointless.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler: what it reports, where the input comes from, what it costs, and the endpoint. The most important fact (per-channel status) is front-loaded.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the counts, per-channel state, and error message. The endpoint and rate limit round out a call-ready picture; only polling/retention semantics are absent.

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% and the single parameter is documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by specifying the exact provenance of transaction_id — the reply from hotelrunner_update_room_calendar — which the schema only loosely hints at as 'an update reply'.

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+resource (retrieve per-channel status of a calendar update) and immediately names the sibling that produces the input, hotelrunner_update_room_calendar. An agent can distinguish this from the update tool and from unrelated list tools without opening either schema.

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 condition for use is explicit: pass the transaction_id returned by hotelrunner_update_room_calendar, so the tool is clearly the follow-up to a calendar write. It does not state whether the agent should poll until a terminal state or how long a transaction_id remains queryable, which leaves one gap.

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