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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds important domain behavior by enumerating status outcomes and explicitly warning not to say a reservation is confirmed unless the returned status is confirmed.

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 is front-loaded with the core use case and every sentence contributes useful invocation or safety information. It is dense and somewhat run-on, but the examples and confirmation warning earn their space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described, and annotations already cover the safety profile. The description is complete enough for correct invocation, with the main minor gap being the unexplained market parameter.

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 low at 20%, so the description carries meaningful burden. It explains status_token, email, management_id, and reservation_number usage, with examples combining them; however, it does not explain the market parameter and does not explicitly clarify that reservation_number remains required in all examples.

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 and resource: checking a reservation's status, including the concrete states it distinguishes (confirmed, awaiting code/payment, awaiting rental company). This clearly separates it from siblings like cancel_reservation, confirm_reservation_code, and list_my_reservations.

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 clear usage context and explains multiple valid identification paths: status_token, booking e-mail, management_id, or reservation number alone when the account is connected. It lacks an explicit statement of when not to use this tool versus adjacent siblings, which keeps it below a 5.

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