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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds two non-obvious behaviors: the mandatory-filter rule and the warning that a sale may be a membership spanning several bookings so amounts must not be totaled by sale id. It does not describe result ordering or default date-window behavior, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, front-loaded with what comes back before the call constraints, and closing with the endpoint. The field enumeration doubles as return-value documentation since there is no output schema — every sentence earns its place.

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 10 parameters, no output schema and no enums, the description carries a lot of weight and does it well: it effectively describes the return shape and the call constraint. Missing only pagination guidance (deferred to the schema's next_page hint) and any note on default ordering or result size, so a 4.

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 3 is the baseline and the schema already documents each parameter. The description nevertheless adds semantics the schema lacks: which parameters satisfy the API's requirement, and that start_date/end_date only narrow rather than qualify the query. It says nothing about the scheduled or status_id filters, so not a 5.

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?

A specific verb (list) plus the exact resource (bookings, glossed as reservas/appointments) and an enumeration of returned fields — time, status, service, provider, client id, location, price, linked sale. That is more than enough to know what it does. It stops just short of a 5 because it never names a sibling such as agendapro_get_booking (single booking) or agendapro_list_sales as the alternative, so the boundary is inferred 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?

Gives the single hardest precondition outright: at least one of client_id, location_id, service_id or service_provider_id is required, and dates only narrow the result. That is a real when-to-use rule an agent would otherwise get wrong (the schema lists zero required parameters). No explicit exclusion pointing to a competing sibling tool, which keeps it at 4.

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