shelf_get_booking

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that the response includes assets and kits, but it says nothing about pagination, missing-booking behavior, or output shape.

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?

A single short sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to carry the required behavioral and parameter context.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by noting assets and kits are returned, and annotations cover safety. However, the undocumented required bookingId parameter and absent usage/routing guidance leave the definition only minimally complete.

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 only 50%: orgId is documented in the schema, but bookingId has no description. The description adds nothing about either parameter (e.g. ID format or what happens if orgId is omitted), so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required parameter.

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 (get) and resource (booking) and adds scope ('incl. assets and kits'). It is distinguishable from list-style siblings by the singular 'get', but the description never names the closest alternative (shelf_list_bookings) to confirm this is the single-booking lookup rather than a filtered list.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the ID-based single-booking retrieval versus shelf_list_bookings or shelf_bookings_calendar.

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