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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read with no side effects, so the description's main addition is the raw endpoint path (GET /api/integration/booking-statuses). It adds nothing about whether statuses are global vs. account-specific or how many are typically returned.

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 short fragments, purpose first, endpoint second; nothing extraneous. The key information (what it lists and what the IDs are for) 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?

For a zero-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: the resource and the intended downstream use. It could say slightly more about the shape of results (id + label vs. bare ids), which matters because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly signals that no input 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List booking statuses') and adds why it exists ('ids for the status filter'), which separates it from sibling list_* tools that return full objects. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling (limoexpress_list_booking_types), so it stops short of a 5.

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 parenthetical 'ids for the status filter' implies the workflow (fetch these before filtering bookings by status), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. Usage must be inferred.

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