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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds that no sign-in is needed, explains the 'pending' status meaning, and clarifies that the phone number is askable from the person – behavior beyond the annotations. It does not cover rate limits or error conditions, hence not a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and parameter requirements, plus a useful parenthetical example. Every sentence earns its place; no wasted words.

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?

Given this is a read-only status check with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description provides all needed context: what the tool does, required inputs and their origins, the no-sign-in behavior, and status interpretation. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 33%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented bookingCode and restaurantId parameters. It explains the booking code format and origin, and that the restaurantId must be the same as used to place the booking. The phone parameter is well-covered in the schema, and the description reinforces its usage, adding substantial meaning.

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?

The description states a specific verb (check status) and resource (previously submitted booking or order) identified by code. It names the code example (WA-K4M2) and covers tables, stays, services, delivery, and pre-orders, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like book_reservation or track_order.

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 description explains when to use this tool (checking status of a previously submitted booking/order by its code) and the necessary credentials (same restaurantId and phone number, no sign-in needed). It adds a helpful note on status 'pending' but does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions.

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