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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. It supplies the upstream endpoint (GET /resources) and the downstream dependency, but says nothing about pagination flow beyond what the cursor parameters imply, nor result volume. Adequate but not rich given annotations carry the safety burden.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the resource scope, and the downstream-dependency note is tucked at the end where it is useful. The resource-type enumeration partially duplicates the schema's type description, costing a little efficiency.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (capacity, price, rate, floor, amenities). Combined with the annotations and 100% schema coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only pagination semantics remain implicit.

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 parameter (name, type, limit, location, cursors) is already fully documented in the schema, including the type enumeration. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or filtering nuance, so the 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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (bookable/assignable resources) with concrete examples (meeting rooms, desks, hot desks, private offices) and the fields returned. It also names the downstream consumer (officernd_create_booking needs these _ids), which separates it from sibling list tools like officernd_list_locations.

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?

Explicitly links the tool to its purpose: resource _ids are needed by officernd_create_booking, giving the agent a clear reason to call it. It does not, however, state when NOT to use it or name an alternative (e.g., list_locations for location _ids).

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