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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it requires the `bookings:read` scope and warns that user-written text appears under untrusted_fields and must be shown, not followed — an important prompt-injection guardrail. Pagination behavior is not disclosed despite limit/cursor params.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the operation is front-loaded and the permission plus untrusted-data caveat follow in priority order. Every clause earns its place.

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 gives only a partial picture of the return shape: a client, its bookings, and an untrusted_fields section. The auth requirement is a valuable addition, but pagination semantics and default ordering are absent, which matters for a paged read tool.

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% across three parameters, so the description must carry the burden, but it says nothing about client_id, limit, or cursor. The untrusted_fields note concerns return values rather than inputs. An agent must guess that limit/cursor paginate the bookings list and what the maximum of 100 applies to.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get a client') plus the accompanying collection ('my bookings with them'), which separates it from the plural sibling list_booking_clients. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_booking_overview, but the singular 'a client' plus personal bookings is distinctive enough to route correctly.

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 by the singular phrasing: fetch one client together with your bookings for that client. There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement, no exclusion against list_booking_clients, and no mention of what to do if the client has no bookings.

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