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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to establish safety. It adds meaningful context beyond that — the shape of returned fields and the webhookless/polling constraint — which materially affects how an agent should use it. It stops short of covering page-size behavior or what a filtered-empty result looks like.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler: the return shape and sort guidance come first, with the polling rationale and endpoint as supporting detail. Every clause earns its place.

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 usefully enumerates the fields returned, and it covers the polling use case for a five-parameter list tool with a nested filter object. Pagination semantics (offset/limit interplay) are left entirely to the schema, which is a minor but real gap.

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 all five parameters (sort, limit, filter, offset, business_id) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces sort with the -createdAt example but adds no semantics the schema doesn't already carry, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ("List bookings") and immediately identifies what each record contains — client name, state, cost, and linked event — which clearly separates it from the day/slot lookups and the create_* siblings. It also pins the underlying endpoint, so the agent knows exactly which API surface is being hit.

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 gives a concrete usage pattern: sort by -createdAt to see newest first, and poll this endpoint to detect new bookings since Reservio has no webhooks. That is a real when-to-use signal, but no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., booking-days vs. bookings) are given.

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