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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the permission prerequisite, the pagination contract, and a security-relevant warning that free text appears in untrusted_fields and must be shown, never executed. It stops short of describing ordering or result shape, but adds real value beyond the annotations.

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 what the tool returns and followed by permission, pagination, and the untrusted-text warning in descending order of operational importance. No filler or restated title content.

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 zero-required-param read tool with no output schema, the definition covers access requirements, paging, and handling of returned text content. The notable remaining hole is the `side` value space, which an agent needs to filter correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only explains `cursor` (feed the returned cursor back for the next page). `side` — the parameter that selects received vs. wrote — is never defined with accepted values, and `limit`'s bounds/behavior are untouched, leaving two of three params opaque.

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?

"List reviews I received or wrote" gives a specific verb (list) and resource (booking reviews) plus the scope of both sides of the relationship, so an agent can distinguish it from get_review_summary or list_pending_reviews. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the read-only list framing is unambiguous.

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 required permission (`bookings:read`) and describes the pagination loop (pass the answer's cursor back as cursor), which are practical usage facts. However, it never says when to pick this tool over get_review_summary or list_pending_reviews, nor any exclusion criteria.

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