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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely non-structured context — that the status_token is itself the sole credential, that no account exists, and that it must be treated as a secret. It also enumerates the status values and returned fields. It stops short of describing rate limits or token expiry, which would be the remaining behavioral gaps.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the required inputs, then the security constraint and return shape. Every sentence carries information not available elsewhere.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return burden and does so by listing status values, property id, request timestamp, and the conditionally available appointment date/time. For a two-parameter read tool with annotations, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds security semantics by framing status_token as a credential that must not be shared or requested from another user, which the schema does not convey. It also clarifies both parameters originate from book_viewing.

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 ('check whether a viewing request ... has been confirmed') and ties it to the sibling that creates the request (book_viewing). An agent can distinguish it from book_viewing, cancel_viewing, and slot lookups without opening the schema.

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?

Clearly establishes the precondition: it is used after book_viewing and consumes the two values book_viewing returned. It does not explicitly name when not to use it (e.g., 'use cancel_viewing to cancel'), so it falls short of full alternative routing, but the context is unambiguous.

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