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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it delivers: it explicitly states 'Read-only', lists the return fields, and mentions available filters. This adds behavioral context that is not available from structured data, though it stops short of discussing pagination, API key requirements, or error behavior.

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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a filter summary. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the main functionality, return fields, and filter options, which is adequate for a simple list tool. However, it does not explain the behavior of the 'limit' parameter, authentication through 'apiKey', or what happens with required 'orgSlug'. Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, these gaps make the description complete enough for basic use but not fully robust.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by indicating that 'type', 'active state', and 'search' are filters, but it does not clarify the semantics of 'limit', 'apiKey', or 'orgSlug' (beyond the required field name). The property names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds only partial meaning.

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 states the tool's function: 'List the bookable resources of an organization' with concrete examples (rooms, boxes, chairs, equipment) and the attributes returned (type, capacity, buffer minutes, location, active state). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which appear to handle resource listing.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when you need to list/filter bookable resources) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. There is no exclusionary guidance or comparison to other tools, so it stops at implied usage rather than clear context.

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