Check a calendar booking

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description correctly focuses on adding new information: required scopes (bookings:read, luca:read), redacted data sensitivity, absence of an idempotency requirement, and a state machine describing what a confirmed request returns. This is genuine context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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 behavioral sentence is front-loaded and reads naturally. The operational block (endpoint, scopes, sensitivity, idempotency, workspace override) is boilerplate but each line carries distinct actionable information for the caller, so there is little waste.

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-shape explanation is not required, yet the description still flags what a confirmed request contains (booking id and meeting link). Combined with scope, sensitivity and workspace-resolution details, an agent has enough to call this correctly; a pointer to the follow-up booking-read tool is the only real 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 coverage is 67% and both workspace parameters carry their own descriptions, so the schema does most of the work. The description adds the meaningful detail that workspaceId/workspaceSlug override the environment-configured default workspace, but says nothing about the required id parameter's semantics beyond the endpoint path.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read where a calendar booking request stands'), which distinguishes it from the booking-reading sibling luca_bookings_get by naming the provider-request state resource. It never explicitly names an alternative tool, so differentiation is implied through terminology 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?

Usage is implied: it describes the pending_provider → confirmed/handoff_required/failed lifecycle, which tells an agent this is the polling endpoint for a request it already created. However, there is no explicit 'use this when' guidance, no exclusion telling the agent to switch to luca_bookings_get once confirmed, and no mention of the counterpart luca_bookings_provider_requests_create.

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