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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, read-only, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the 30-day lookback window, the fields returned, and the 25-row cap.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the scope and then lists returned fields and the row cap. It is efficient, though the 'Max 25' clause slightly duplicates the schema's limit description.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with rich annotations, a fully documented single parameter, and no output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly. Minor details like ordering are omitted but are not essential for correct selection.

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%, and the sole 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the max of 25 but does not add new parameter semantics such as default behavior or sort interaction, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as the member's own bookings and specifies the date scope, returned fields, and row cap. It is distinguishable from broader sibling tools like search_gigs or get_gig, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 'member's own bookings' and the 30-day window, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this instead of siblings such as get_gig, respond_to_booking, or my_invoices. No exclusions or alternative-routing guidance are provided.

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