Get a booking

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint) and open-world scope, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value: it discloses that patient name is returned by default while contact details and free-text fields are gated behind include_contact_details, implying a redaction-by-default behavior. It does not mention error behavior for a missing/invalid booking_id.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope and then the conditional behavior. The field enumeration is dense but each item is informative; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the returned entities plus the conditional redaction rule. Adequate for a 2-parameter read tool, though it omits any note on what happens when the booking_id is not found.

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 50% (booking_id has no description, include_contact_details is well documented). The description compensates by clarifying what the flag unlocks at the field level and confirming patient name appears by default, adding meaning beyond the raw schema text.

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 ('One booking') and enumerates the domain objects returned (status, times, clinician, patient, service, location, payor, recall/cancellation). It implicitly contrasts with list_bookings by scoping to a single record, but never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'One booking' versus the sibling list_bookings. There is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of list_bookings or search_patients, nor any precondition guidance.

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