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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive safety, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the reply shape ('results plus next_offset'), pagination implications, and that only active bookings are returned. It stops short of describing rate limits, permissions, or ordering of results.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then required params, then reply shape, then endpoint. Every clause carries information, though the field enumeration ('grower, block, variety, expected pick time and quantity') is somewhat list-heavy for the space it takes.

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 supplies the critical return information (results plus next_offset) and pagination semantics, and it ties the tool to a concrete endpoint. Combined with 100% schema coverage of 11 parameters, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 every parameter including limit, offset, block_name, grower_name and modified_since is already documented in the schema. The description only echoes that vintage and winery_ids are required and notes the plural winery scope, adding little beyond structured data.

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 active fruit bookings') and defines the domain term inline ('grape deliveries planned for a vintage'), plus names the fields returned. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearest sibling (vintrace_search_fruit_intakes) or with vintrace_deactivate_booking, so it stops short of a 5.

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 declares the two required parameters and the 'active' scope, which implies deactivated bookings are excluded. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. vintrace_search_fruit_intakes or when-to-use vintrace_deactivate_booking instead, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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