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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the enumeration of possible status outcomes, which is modest extra behavioral context, but says nothing about freshness, repeated polling, or rate limits.

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 zero filler: the action, the enumerated outcomes, and the input source all appear in one pass. Nothing repeats the title or restates the schema.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly avoids doing so. It covers what the tool does and where the required key comes from; it only omits minor context such as whether repeated polling is expected or how the language parameter affects output.

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 are already documented in the schema, including the confirmationCode format and example. The description only reinforces where confirmationCode comes from; it adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Returns the current status of a booking request'), enumerates the possible states (waiting for the hotel, confirmed, cancelled), and identifies the lookup key's origin. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like cancel_booking or request_booking.

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 phrase 'by the confirmation code request_booking returned' implies the tool is used after request_booking, giving implicit sequencing guidance. However, no when-not conditions or explicit alternatives (e.g. polling vs. cancel flows) are stated, so usage must be inferred.

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