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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the fact that the tool filters by date range, status, etc., but these are already present in the schema. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination behavior, sort order, or inclusion of cancelled bookings) are disclosed, though the annotations lower the bar.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action ('List bookings') and followed by a concise enumeration of filters. There is no wasted language or redundant detail, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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 simple list operation with all optional filters, an output schema, and detailed parameter descriptions, the description is adequate. It does not explain return values (not needed due to output schema) and the annotations cover safety. The only minor gap is the lack of mention of the default limit, but that is documented in the schema.

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. The description lists filter categories (date range, status, service, staff, member) that map to the schema properties (dateFrom/dateTo, status, serviceId, staffId, accountId), but it does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It serves as a helpful summary but no extra semantics.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List bookings'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_booking_detail or cancel_booking by focusing on listing. The mention of filters (date range, status, service, staff, member) further clarifies the scope, making it unambiguous.

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 implies a use case: when you need to list bookings with optional filters. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_booking_detail for a single booking, or get_booking_stats for aggregate data). The context is clear but not exhaustive.

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