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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations and schema: recurring series are collapsed to their first instance, which materially changes what the caller receives. It stops short of describing pagination interaction or return ordering, so it is not exemplary.

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: the core semantics first, then the filter scope, then the alternative tool, then the endpoint. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the structured fields.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical ambiguity (series vs. occurrence granularity) and the endpoint. Pagination and return-shape behavior are left entirely to the schema's cursor descriptions, which is acceptable but leaves the description slightly short of fully self-contained.

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%, with each of the 12 parameters documented in the schema itself (including limit bounds, cursor usage, and ISO 8601 formats). The description only restates the filter categories in prose, adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. 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 (list) and resource (bookings), and immediately specifies the aggregation semantics: one entry per one-off booking and one per recurring series (first instance only). It explicitly names the sibling officernd_list_booking_occurrences as the contrasting tool, so the agent can distinguish the two list endpoints without opening either schema.

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 an explicit routing rule: use this tool for series-level listings, use officernd_list_booking_occurrences for every individual occurrence in a date window. It also enumerates the filterable dimensions (member, company, location, resource, series start window, status), which tells the agent when this tool is the right fit.

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