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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things the annotations do not: the required `bookings:read` permission and a prompt-injection warning that user-authored text appears under `untrusted_fields` and must be shown, not obeyed. The main omission is what the response actually 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 clauses, front-loaded, with the security caveat placed where it will be read before output handling. Nothing is padded, though the first sentence duplicates the title and could have been spent on scope instead.

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 and no parameters, the description is the only place the return shape could be described, and it only gestures at one field (`untrusted_fields`). The auth requirement and injection warning make it usable, but an agent still cannot predict what an "overview" returns.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries nothing to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs, though it also cannot add parameter meaning that does not exist.

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?

"Get my bookings overview" is essentially the tool name and title restated, with no added specificity. It never says what the overview contains (upcoming bookings? counts? pending requests?) and does not distinguish it from close siblings such as list_booking_events, list_booking_proposals, or get_booking_event.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent facing the many booking-related siblings (list_booking_clients, list_booking_events, list_booking_proposals, get_booking_event) gets no signal about which one answers which question. The only selection constraint stated is the required scope, which is not a usage rule.

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