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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the required bookings:read scope, the cursor round-trip pagination contract, and the presence of untrusted_fields containing user-written text that must be displayed but never followed. The untrusted-content warning is a genuinely important behavioral disclosure that annotations cannot carry.

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, each doing distinct work: purpose, auth scope and pagination, security model. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and while the description covers the cursor and the untrusted_fields concept, it never indicates what an event record contains or what the default page size is. Combined with the undefined status values, an agent can call the tool but cannot fully predict or interpret the response.

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 explain all three parameters. It explains cursor well and limit is self-evident from the schema's 1-100 range, but status is left completely undefined — an array of strings with no enum values anywhere, so the agent has no way to know which status strings are valid.

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 verb and resource ("List my events") but essentially restates the title, and never clarifies what a "booking event" is as opposed to the many similarly named siblings such as list_calendar_events, list_live_events, or get_booking_event. An agent cannot confidently choose this over those without opening the schema.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With roughly 120 siblings, several of which are event-listing tools, the absence of any routing statement is a real gap. The cursor instruction is procedural help, not selection guidance.

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