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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real operational context beyond that: the auth requirement (Quub API key), the fact this connection lacks one, the remediation path (request_api_key), and the dependency on prebook output. It does not contradict the read-only annotation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries information, but the middle enumeration of status values is dense and parenthetical-heavy, making it feel like a run-on rather than cleanly structured prose.

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 steps in to describe the returned statuses and fields (pay_url, confirmation number, hotel reference, voucher_url, refund, total, cancellation terms, free cancellation deadline), plus auth and prerequisites. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 100%, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: that the caller needs guest_email OR booking_secret even though the schema marks only booking_id as required, and it ties booking_secret/booking_id back to prebook. This resolves a genuine ambiguity in the required-parameter list.

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+resource: retrieves the status of a booking created by this key, and enumerates the concrete return states (awaiting_payment, confirming, confirmed, outcome_pending, failed/cancelled). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_hotel or prebook.

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?

Gives prerequisites (needs guest_email or booking_secret from prebook) and routes to a sibling when the key is missing (use request_api_key). It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use it versus cancel_booking, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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