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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and does so well: it discloses billing side effects (charged per the resource's rate unless is_free/is_tentative), notification side effects (member notified unless is_silent), and the required OAuth scope flex.space.bookings.create. The 'WRITE' marker is consistent with destructiveHint=true, so there is no contradiction.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation type ('WRITE') and the core action, followed by side-effect conditions, then scope and endpoint. No sentence is filler and no information is buried.

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 13-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs beyond the fully-documented schema: mutation semantics, cost/notification consequences, required scope, and the underlying API route. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines all 13 parameters and the baseline would be 3. The description goes further by explaining cross-parameter interactions the schema cannot express — that is_free/is_tentative suppress charging and is_silent suppresses notification — which materially changes how an agent sets those flags.

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+resource ('Book a resource (e.g. a meeting room) for a member and/or company') and front-loads 'WRITE', so the agent immediately knows this is the create path rather than the sibling read tools (officernd_get_booking, officernd_list_bookings). It even names the backing endpoint (POST /bookings), making the resource unambiguous.

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 description makes clear when this tool applies (booking a resource for a member and/or company) and explains the conditional branches that govern the call (charged unless is_free/is_tentative, notified unless is_silent). It does not explicitly name alternatives such as officernd_get_booking or officernd_list_booking_occurrences, but the create-vs-read distinction is self-evident from the verb.

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