Get booking page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered without the description. The description adds only the single-page scoping ('one booking page's settings') and says nothing about auth, error behavior for unknown IDs, or response shape. Minimum-viable given annotations carry the safety signal.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the parameter hint following. Nothing wastes the agent's attention.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually ('settings') and how to shape the request. It stops short of describing error/not-found behavior or id-source alternatives, but nothing essential for 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 (fields, profileId) are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds the dot-notation hint for nested settings beyond the schema's flat comma-separated example, but that hint is thin and arguably inconsistent with the schema example (id,title,subdomain,timeZone) and the absence of nested objects.

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 one booking page's settings'), and the word 'one' signals a single-record fetch, distinguishing it in spirit from list_booking_pages. However it never names or contrasts the sibling retrieval tools (get_booking, list_booking_pages) explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 only guidance offered is about the `fields` parameter ('use fields to ask for specific nested settings'), not about when to choose this tool over list_booking_pages or get_booking. No prerequisites, no when-not-to-use, no alternative routing is provided.

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