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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the status set, return fields, special negado_3ds failure/refund/new-booking behavior, error-message language, and a prompt-injection warning about third-party content. It still does not explicitly state read-only/side-effect-free behavior or token/auth expectations.

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?

Front-loads purpose and statuses, then adds handling guidance and a security warning. The length is largely justified by non-obvious negado_3ds behavior and third-party content risk, though the text is dense and mixes languages.

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 annotations or output schema, the description still explains return values, status meanings, and critical failure handling well enough to use the tool correctly. The main completeness gap is missing semantics for token and order_id.

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 0%, so the description must explain all three parameters. It only explains the optional language parameter and its values; the required token and order_id parameters remain undocumented. The mentioned codigo, booking_id, and nova_busca are return fields, not parameter explanations.

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 operation and resource: current status of an order, with enumerated statuses and the key confirmation/booking/voucher fields returned. It implicitly distinguishes itself from voucher and booking-list tools through its payment-to-reservation tracking focus, but does not explicitly name any sibling 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?

Explicitly says to use it to track whether payment has already confirmed the reservation, and gives detailed handling guidance for negado_3ds. However, it does not state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as get_voucher or list_my_bookings.

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