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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: results are sorted with waiting ones first, the user must have connected their Foundaree account, and the status is framed as waiting for an answer. This goes beyond annotations, though it could mention edge cases like an empty account.

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?

Four short, purposeful sentences. The first defines the output content, the second gives usage triggers, the third states the prerequisite, and the fourth suggests a next action. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the returned content (who, what, when, status) and behavior (pending first). For a no-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, everything needed to select and invoke it correctly is present.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description clarifies that the tool implicitly operates on the signed-in user's identity, which adds meaning beyond the empty schema even though no parameters need explanation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the booking requests people sent to the signed-in user,' and enumerates exactly what is shown (who asked, what they need, when, pending status). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like my_connection_requests or request_appointment.

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 gives explicit triggers: 'Use it when the user asks what is waiting on Foundaree, who wants to book them, or what they have not answered yet.' It also names a prerequisite (connected Foundaree account) and routes follow-up to the sibling respond_to_booking, leaving no ambiguity.

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