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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description's job is to add what they don't say. It does: no authentication is required, phone is verified together with the code, and because there is no output schema it explains the returned status and that 'pending' means the venue has not yet responded.

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 verb and lookup key, then prerequisites and return behavior. Every clause carries information — scope, example, credentials, auth, and return semantics — with 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?

With no output schema, the description properly explains what comes back, and it covers auth and all three inputs. The remaining gap is disambiguation from track_order/list_my_orders in a crowded sibling set, which an agent cannot resolve from the description alone.

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 only 33% (only phone is documented in the schema), so the description must compensate — and largely does: bookingCode is the code returned when the booking was placed (with example WA-K4M2), restaurantId is where it was placed, and phone is what it was made with, checked together with the code. Format details for restaurantId and bookingCode remain thin.

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 — looks up the status of a booking or order — and clarifies it covers tables, stays, services, delivery requests and pre-orders. It does not differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as track_order or list_my_orders, so an agent facing those alternatives must infer the distinction.

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?

It gives useful invocation context: the code must be the one returned at placement, plus restaurantId and phone, with no sign-in. However, with 27 siblings including track_order and list_my_orders, it never states when to prefer this tool over those, nor any when-not conditions.

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