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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the important default behavior (no filters -> upcoming bookings only) and the authorization scopes required for guest data (bookings-personal) and invoice items (bookings-financial). It does not describe pagination behavior or result shape, though the `page` parameter schema partly covers paging.

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?

Front-loaded with the core search scope, then default behavior, then filter shortcuts, then scopes. Dense but every sentence contributes information; the single long opening clause is slightly heavy to parse but not wasteful.

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 24-param, zero-required listing tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the queryable surface, default no-filter behavior, and permission requirements well. It lacks any note on result format/completeness or how paging interacts with large result sets, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

With 83% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning where the schema does not: the `filter` enum values are undefined in the schema yet fully explained in the description, and the scopes tied to includeGuests/includeInvoiceItems are clarified. Remaining params (includeInfoItems, includeBookingGroup) are left to the schema.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Search bookings") and enumerates the exact dimensions queryable (arrival/departure range, booking/modified time, property, room, channel, status, free-text), which clearly sets it apart from the single-record beds24_get_booking. It stops short of naming an overlapping sibling such as beds24_get_unit_bookings, so sibling routing is left implicit.

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?

Provides clear usage context: no filters returns only upcoming bookings, and each `filter` shortcut is defined with its time window (arrivals, departures, new, current). It does not state when to prefer an alternative tool (e.g. get_booking for a single id) or when-not to use this tool, so the exclusions half of the guideline is missing.

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