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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description still adds real value: the required `bookings:read` scope and a prompt-injection warning that free text comes back in `untrusted_fields`. Not specifying return fields or default page size keeps it from a 5.

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 untrusted-data caveat. Every sentence carries information; only the ordering of the untrusted_fields note feels slightly appended.

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?

Good coverage of auth and the one output-shape fact that matters most (untrusted_fields), which compensates for the missing output schema. However, for a five-parameter filtered list with zero schema documentation, the undocumented filters are a meaningful completeness gap.

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 five parameters, and the description explains only `cursor`. It says nothing about `q`, `side`, `status`, or `limit`, leaving the agent to guess accepted values for the two filter-like and one enum-less string/array parameter.

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 ('List my requests and offers'), which maps clearly onto the proposal concept and its sibling get_booking_proposal. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the other list_* booking tools (list_booking_clients, list_booking_events), so differentiation is only partial.

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 guidance on when to use this versus get_booking_proposal or the other listing siblings, and no mention of what the filters are for. The only operational guidance is pagination ('pass the answer's cursor back as cursor'), which covers continuation but not selection.

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