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. The description adds the useful fact that this is a status-observation tool returning one of three discrete states, but it says nothing about statuses changing over time, whether re-polling is expected, or latency of hotel confirmation.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then qualifies with the enumeration of states and the key source. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be explained, and the description still usefully names the three possible states. For a read-only lookup it is nearly complete; only polling/timing behavior is left unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 (confirmationCode with example, language enum) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the provenance of confirmationCode, which the schema description already conveys, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it. 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 (returns) and resource (current status of a booking request), enumerates the possible states (waiting for the hotel, confirmed, cancelled), and ties the key to its producer (request_booking). An agent can distinguish it from cancel_booking or the search tools 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?

The phrase 'by the confirmation code request_booking returned' establishes the precondition that a booking must already exist, which is clear usage context. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when-not to use it (e.g. don't call before requesting a booking), so it isn't a full 5.

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