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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses ordering logic (requests awaiting decision first), the default 7-day window, and that client contacts are included. This gives the agent useful behavioral expectations. It does not contradict the annotation, and it adds value without repeating it.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first front-loads the audience restriction, the second summarizes behavior and default window. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 listing tool, the description covers audience, ordering, default window, and included contacts. However, with no output schema and only 25% parameter coverage, it leaves to/from format, status filtering, and pagination behavior unspecified. These gaps matter for reliable invocation.

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 only 25% (only business_id has a description), so the description must compensate. It adds the default 7-day period and implies to/from define the period. However, it does not explain the status enum, date formats, or how status interacts with the ordering rule.

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 states the resource (booking requests) and audience (business owners), and details the output: requests awaiting decision first, then bookings in the period (default 7 days) with client contacts. The title 'Check booking requests' aligns with the behavior. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

The description gives a clear audience constraint ('Only for business owners signed in to Awning') and a default period, which tells you the typical context for use. However, it does not mention alternatives like my_bookings, get_booking, or owner_get_schedule, nor does it state when not to use this tool. Route selection is left partially to inference.

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