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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: sort order, the pagination envelope (total, per-category counts, nextCursor), and domain semantics for 'source' (property_manager = site's own manager) and 'commercial' (paid placement) that an agent could not infer elsewhere.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ordering before the field inventory. The field list is dense but each item carries meaning; no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating returned fields and the response envelope. Combined with fully documented parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only the default time window is left implicit.

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 every parameter is already documented with format patterns and constraints. The description concentrates on return fields rather than adding parameter meaning; its only param-adjacent contribution is reinforcing cursor round-tripping and category keys, which the schema already states.

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 and resource ('Lists upcoming events'), plus the scope ('near one Booking Bench site') and ordering ('earliest first'). It is clearly distinct from get_event and get_calendar, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 only implied: 'upcoming' plus a single-site scope tells the agent roughly the context, and the schema ties siteSlug to list_sites. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_event (single lookup) or get_calendar, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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