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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuine scope context by disclosing that cancelled and answered inquiries are included, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what happens when the limit truncates results.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the resource scope leads before the filter detail. The noun-phrase opening is slightly telegraphic, but nothing is redundant.

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 no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. With 100% parameter coverage and an explicit status enumeration, the only unstated detail is result ordering, which is minor for a filtered list.

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 100%, so both limit and status are already documented. The description restates the status values ("confirmed", "cancelled", "answered", "" for all) but adds no meaning beyond the schema's identical enumeration. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names the resource (the account's bookings) and its scope (confirmed, cancelled, answered), and the title supplies the verb 'List'. An agent can identify what it retrieves, though it never contrasts itself with the sibling modify_booking or list_contacts.

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 rather than stated: listing bookings for the account, optionally narrowed by status. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as modify_booking for changes or list_contacts for a different resource.

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