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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses the return structure (confirmation details, failure reasons with enumerated causes, needs_input options) and the effect of include_events. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or any potential side effects.

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?

The description front-loads the core purpose and lists statuses concisely. It is slightly verbose with examples but remains efficient and well-structured.

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 simple read operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the state machine, return details, and parameter behavior adequately. It is fairly complete but could mention that it does not modify state.

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?

The description explains the include_events parameter ('returns the full audit log'), adding value beyond the schema. However, booking_id is not described, and schema coverage is 0%. Overall provides some but not complete parameter context.

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 clearly states the tool returns the state machine position for a booking, enumerates all possible states (pending, queued, in_progress, confirmed, failed, needs_input, cancelled), and specifies the structured details returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_booking, modify_booking, etc.

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 implies use for checking booking status but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare with alternatives like get_registry_meta or other tools.

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