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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so 'Read-only' in the description adds nothing new, but the enumeration of status states and the note that payment and refund details are included is real behavioral context beyond the annotations. It stops short of explaining token expiry or whether status can change after a terminal state.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a compact parenthetical list of status values; every clause carries information. The trailing 'Read-only.' repeats the annotation and is minor waste.

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 tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it lists status values and mentions payment/refund details in the result. Minor gaps remain around the status_token's single-use nature and whether the status is a snapshot.

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 each parameter's origin (booking_id, status_token from request_booking; business_id from search_businesses) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 ('Get the current status of a booking') and enumerates the possible status values, which tells an agent exactly what the tool returns. Referencing that the booking was made with request_booking separates it from mutate/query siblings like cancel_booking or get_availability.

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 and schema descriptions imply the correct context (a booking previously created via request_booking), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives for related queries. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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