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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' is redundant. It adds minor behavioral context like the access code being customer-received and the specific data fields returned, but these are largely covered by the output schema and parameter schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short, well-structured sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by requirements, and a final read-only note. Every sentence contributes directly to correct invocation.

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?

This is a simple single-booking lookup with only two parameters, both fully specified in the schema, and an output schema exists to describe return structure. The description covers the operation's purpose, required inputs, and read-only nature. Nothing an agent needs for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters (booking_reference and access_code) are already well-documented with formats and examples. The description adds only a slight clarification that the access code was received by the customer, which already appears in the schema ('given at booking time'). No significant additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Returns'), a resource ('ONE booking'), and the scope of what is returned (status, pickup time, addresses, price, flight). It distinguishes itself from siblings like cancel/create/hold/update by focusing on retrieval only.

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 makes it clear this is for looking up a booking and is read-only, implying it is not for modifications. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., ried_taxi_update_booking) or state when not to use it. The context is clear but exclusions are only implicit.

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