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

Annotations already declare the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a privacy boundary ('never who booked it'), a 30-day cutoff for returned bookings, and stuck-state semantics tying into links_polls_close.

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 purpose and every clause carries information (field lists, ordering, cutoff, privacy). It is one very long run-on sentence, which hurts scannability, keeping it short of a 5.

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 carries the full burden of describing return shape and does so field-by-field for links, polls, pages, and bookings. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret this correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is no parameter surface for the description to add value to, and nothing is misdescribed.

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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: 'List the person's booking links and group polls still open or being booked', with ordering and per-entity field enumeration. It cleanly separates itself from siblings by naming links_polls_close for closing and polls_results for reading answers.

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?

It states the condition that selects this tool ('still open or being booked') and routes to two alternatives (links_polls_close, polls_results). It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X list' comparison, but the routing is clear.

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