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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses an API key requirement, explains cursor-based pagination tied to folder order, and notes that drafts_quotes contain quote_id for send_quote.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the core resource and action, then layers in folder scope, filters, pagination, cross-tool link, and auth. The opening fragment 'BookingKoala: Bookings with...' is slightly awkward and the title prefix is redundant, but overall it is efficient.

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 compensates by listing returned booking fields (customer, services, date, arrival time, provider, price) and explaining pagination and quote linkage. It could be more explicit about the response shape and default folder behavior, but it is largely complete for a list tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description reiterates folder values and date/customer/provider filters, and adds only minor cursor usage detail ('pass next_cursor back as cursor'), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description clearly states the resource (bookings) and the action (lists) along with the filtering scope (folder, date range, customer, provider). It distinguishes itself from other booking tools by naming the folder-based listing behavior, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_booking for single-booking retrieval.

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?

It explains that the tool lists bookings in one of four folders and can filter by date range, customer, or provider, giving implied usage context. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_booking, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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