maideo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a polling operation (implying potential repeated calls) and specifies required authentication tokens (bookingToken), which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by prerequisite details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, prerequisites, and parameter semantics. However, for a status-polling tool, it lacks details on return values (e.g., status states like 'pending', 'completed') or polling behavior (e.g., intervals, timeouts), leaving some context gaps.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: bookingId and bookingToken, including their source (from create_booking). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, making the parameters understandable and actionable.

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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('poll the current status') and resource ('booking'), with explicit examples of what a booking might represent (order, mission, worker assignment, URSSAF enrollment). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_booking (creation) or get_quote (price estimation).

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool: after create_booking, as it requires bookingId and bookingToken from that operation. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. search_coverage for broader queries) or name alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.

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