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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add beyond that. It adds useful context that status values include registration, attendance, no-show and late-cancel states and that expansion is available, but says nothing about pagination limits or result volume, even though the tool returns a paginated list.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what a booking record is before listing filters. The middle clause ('who is registered for, attended, no-showed or late-cancelled which event') is slightly convoluted but still compact and information-dense rather than padded.

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 12-param read-only list tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the conceptual framing (what a booking is), the filter vocabulary, and the expand tip. The main omission is any hint about pagination behavior or typical result size, but the schema covers the page/page_size mechanics.

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 every one of the 12 parameters is already documented in the schema. The description slightly reinforces the filterable fields and highlights the expand convention, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List bookings') and immediately enumerates what each record contains: attendance status, event, and customer membership. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like goteamup_get_event or goteamup_list_events, which return event data rather than per-customer attendance records.

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 explicit filter axes (customer, event, venue, offering type, status, event start window) and a concrete tip to use expand=customer,event for names, which is actionable invocation guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as goteamup_get_customer_membership or per-event lookups, leaving routing to inference.

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