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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the annotation carries the safety profile. The description adds the underlying API route and clarifies the resource domain, but says nothing about pagination defaults, result ordering, or what the response 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 the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is mostly an endpoint restatement, which is useful routing context but slightly redundant with the title.

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 five-parameter, nested-filter, no-output-schema tool, the description is thin: it doesn't indicate that results are paginated, what fields resources expose, or how filters resolve. The readOnly annotation and full schema coverage keep it adequate rather than inadequate.

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 sort, limit, offset, filter, and business_id all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter guidance, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List bookable resources") and clarifies what counts as a resource (staff, rooms), which separates it from get_resource and list_services. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternatives, so it falls short of the top band.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'list' – there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus reservio_get_resource or reservio_list_rosters, and no mention of prerequisites or scoping. An agent can infer the intent but not the selection rule.

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