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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds value by enumerating what the response contains (customer, state, tags, services, resources, party size, position, estimated wait, timestamps), which matters since there is no output schema.

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 that leads with the scope and then lists return contents, plus the REST endpoint on the tail. 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives the agent a solid picture of the returned fields and the underlying endpoint. Only minor omissions (e.g., behavior when the id is not found) remain.

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 visit_id is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'by id' without adding format, source, or lookup guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('One visit ... by id') and clarifies the domain term ('waitlist entry or booking'). The singular 'by id' scope cleanly distinguishes it from list_visits and search_visits without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by id' tells the agent an id is required and that this is the single-record fetch. It never explicitly says when to prefer this over list_visits or search_visits, nor when an id would be unavailable.

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