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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: it requires 'resources:read' and warns that the Preview API may change without a version bump, which is useful operational detail.

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 compact and front-loads the preview status and catalog scope. It is mostly efficient, though the read-only statement repeats the annotation and the sentence packs several distinct facts into one long clause.

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?

The description covers purpose, scope exclusions, authorization, and API stability, which is helpful for a list tool with no output schema. It is still incomplete for a required location-scoped list operation because it does not explain locationId, limit, or cursor semantics.

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 only 33% schema description coverage, the description should explain the required locationId and the pagination or limit behavior. It provides no parameter guidance at all, leaving the agent dependent on sparse schema constraints for locationId and an undescribed limit parameter.

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 identifies the resource domain as a bookable resource catalog and online-booking settings, with the explicit exclusion of bookings and availability. This gives a clear sense of what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as resource groups or individual resource retrieval.

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 phrase 'no bookings or availability' implies when not to use this tool, and the catalog/settings scope implies when it is appropriate. However, it does not name alternative tools like cliento_get_resource or cliento_list_resource_groups, so the agent must infer the routing decision.

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