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

Annotations already cover readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that results never contain pay or manage tokens, which is a meaningful output-boundary fact that keeps an agent from expecting link credentials here. It stops short of describing ordering or pagination behavior.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the scoping and exclusion facts appear immediately. The opening fragment is clipped enough to read as an incomplete sentence rather than a polished statement.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the key negative fact about returned content but omits the default limit (50, capped at 100) and the purpose of the status filter. An agent can call it correctly, but result-set size and filtering behavior remain under-explained.

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 75%, so the schema already documents from, to, and limit well. The description's "omit from and to for upcoming sessions" largely restates the schema's own note that an omitted from defaults to now, adding only mild practical framing and nothing about the status enum filter.

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?

The phrase "This provider's bookings" names the resource and scope but supplies no verb of its own — the listing action is only inferable from the tool name and title. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as find_open_slots or get_booking_link, whose results would overlap with a naive reading of "bookings".

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?

"Omit from and to for upcoming sessions" gives one concrete default-behavior rule for the time filters. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like find_open_slots (availability) or get_booking_link (single-booking detail), so the routing decision is only implied.

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