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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the storage/performance profile ('DB-backed and instant'), the truncation behavior ('truncated when there are more'), the default status, and the returned fields — genuinely useful behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then filtering/limits, then routing to sibling tools. It is dense but every clause carries information (returned fields, defaults, truncation, workflow), with no 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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (calendarEventId, meetingStart, bookedAt, contact, account) and the truncation signal. For a read-only list tool with a rich schema, this is complete enough to call correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description reinforces key semantics: the status default and alternative values, from/to filtering on meetingStart, and the limit default (100). It adds marginal framing beyond the schema rather than substantial new syntax.

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 specific verb (List) and resource (bookings) with scope ('accounts you can see') and enumerates the key returned fields. It distinguishes itself from relatives by naming li_booking_due and li_outcome_summary for adjacent needs, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use via the booked-call routine ('reads this to spot a booking whose calendar event has vanished — then li_mark_booking_cancelled') and names alternatives with their distinct conditions (li_booking_due for nudges, li_outcome_summary for conversion rates). Both the action and the exclusions are spelled out.

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