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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: the required OAuth scope, the cursor round-trip protocol, and a warning that user-authored text arrives in untrusted_fields and must be treated as display-only. That last point is genuine safety context an agent could not get from the schema. It stops short of describing ordering or what a client record contains.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then auth, then pagination, then the safety caveat. No filler, no restatement of the title beyond the opening identification.

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 usefully hints at the response shape (a cursor plus untrusted_fields). Combined with the auth scope and pagination rule, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only the semantics of `q`/`limit` and result ordering remain uncovered.

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 carries the burden. It handles the hardest parameter well by explaining that the returned cursor must be passed back as `cursor` for the next page, but `q` and `limit` are never mentioned — their meaning is only inferable from names and the min/max bounds in the schema.

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 ("List my clients"), which is enough for an agent to know this is the collection counterpart to get_booking_client. It does not explicitly name that sibling or clarify the scope of "clients" (all booking clients vs. those with active bookings), so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Includes a concrete prerequisite ("Needs `bookings:read`") and an operational instruction for pagination, which implies when the tool is usable. However, it never says when to prefer it over siblings like get_booking_client or list_booking_events, and gives no exclusion conditions.

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