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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds the payload composition — patient, doctor, location, appointment type, status, journey — which is meaningful behavioral context given there is no output schema. It does not cover not-found or error behavior, so it stops short of full transparency.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and retrieval key, with every clause (the field list) earning its place by substituting for a missing output schema. No filler.

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 tool with annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the main missing piece: what the returned booking contains. It omits failure behavior (unknown id, permissions), which keeps it from a 5.

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 single required 'id' parameter, so the schema carries the burden. The description only restates 'by id' without adding format, source, or validation detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 resource ('One booking') and the access key ('by id'), which clearly separates it from sibling list tools like semble_list_bookings. It does not explicitly name the alternative, but the singular/plural contrast makes the intent unambiguous.

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?

'by id' implies the precondition that the caller must already hold a booking id, and the singular framing distinguishes it from the list siblings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or pointer to semble_list_bookings for discovery, so routing is left to inference.

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