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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-obvious domain semantics, decoding what a planning records and what "started (out)" vs "stopped (returned)" mean, plus the underlying endpoint (GET /api/4/plannings). It does not mention pagination behaviour, but that is the only notable 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?

Two tight sentences: the resource definition comes first, the filter affordances second, and the endpoint reference last. There is no boilerplate and every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 no output schema, the description usefully sketches what each planning contains (product, order, quantity, timing, out/returned counts), and the endpoint reference is a bonus. It is nearly complete for a read-only list tool, though it never says whether results are paginated or how large the default result set is (page_size's default of 25 lives only 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 all ten parameters are already self-documented, including types, ISO 8601 formats, and the 1-100 page_size bound. The description only restates the filter categories at a high level and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (List) plus a domain-specific resource (plannings) and then defines that resource in terms of what it relates: product booked on order, quantity, timing, and out/returned counts. That definition is what separates it from siblings like booqable_list_orders and booqable_list_products, which cover the same underlying entities at a coarser level.

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?

"Filter by order, product, or reservation window" hints at when the tool is useful, and the filters map cleanly onto order_id, product_id and the starts_at/stops_at bounds. However, it never states when to prefer this over sibling list tools (e.g., list_orders to view bookings, or get_order for a single order's detail), so the routing decision is left implicit.

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