Get a booking

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/not-destructive/idempotent, so the description adds real value beyond them: the underlying operation (GET /api/bookings/{id}), required scopes (bookings:read, luca:read), the 'full_content' data sensitivity, and an explicit idempotency note. It omits pagination/field-expansion behavior, but the safety and auth profile is well covered.

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?

Front-loaded with the payload of the tool in one sentence, followed by clearly labeled metadata lines. Every line carries operational information; no filler or duplicated prose. Slightly boilerplate-heavy but appropriately sized.

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 values need not be explained, and the description supplies the operation, auth scopes, sensitivity, and workspace-override context. Only the ambiguity around workspaceId vs workspaceSlug precedence and item-level filtering keeps it short of full completeness.

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 67%, and the description's only parameter-relevant line restates the workspaceId/workspaceSlug override that the schema already documents. It adds nothing for 'id' (uuid/pattern) and doesn't clarify precedence when both workspaceId and workspaceSlug are supplied.

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 ('Read one booking') and enumerates the returned facets (slot, status, provider, lead). The word 'one' distinguishes it from the sibling luca_bookings_list, though no sibling is named 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 implied by the required 'id' and the single-item framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer luca_bookings_list or luca_bookings_brief instead, and no exclusions. The workspace override note concerns parameters, not usage selection.

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