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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this as a non-mutating read, so the description only needs to add operational context. It contributes the expand advice and the filter surface, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result volume, or default page size despite being a list endpoint over potentially large booking sets.

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 short sentences: purpose first, filters second, expand tip third, with the API route appended as a compact reference. No filler and every clause carries information.

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-parameter, zero-required read endpoint with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers identity, filterable dimensions and the key expand option. Only pagination/result-size behavior and any sibling routing guidance are absent, which is a minor gap given the readOnly annotation.

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, including the status enum and sort options; this sets the baseline at 3. The description restates the filter families and gives one expand example, which is mildly reinforcing but adds no syntax or semantics beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource ('List bookings') and defines what a booking row contains: who is registered, attended, no-showed or late-cancelled, for which event, and with which customer membership. That roster semantics clearly separates it from siblings like goteamup_list_events or goteamup_list_customers.

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?

It enumerates the usable filter dimensions (customer, event, venue, offering type, status, event start window) and adds a concrete tip to pass expand=customer,event for names, which is actionable context. It stops short of stating when a different sibling (e.g. goteamup_get_event or goteamup_confirm_attendance) should be preferred instead.

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