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

Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive, so the description adds genuine extra context: default ordering by start time, the returned envelope {results, count, has_more, next_cursor}, and how to paginate via next_cursor. It stops short of noting any limits beyond the schema's max of 100, but the pagination and response-shape disclosure is real value.

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: the primary behavior and filter surface first, then the return shape and pagination instruction. No filler, every clause carries information relevant to calling the tool.

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 and 14 optional parameters, the description supplies the missing pieces: the return envelope, the has_more/next_cursor paging contract, and the default sort. Nothing an agent needs to invoke a read-only filtered list correctly is absent.

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 including enums and ISO date patterns is already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's prose filter list largely restates the schema keys without adding format, interaction, or defaulting details beyond what the schema provides.

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 jobs (booked appointments)"), declares the default sort and the full filter surface, and is clearly distinguishable from the singular zenbooker_get_job sibling. An agent knows immediately this is a filtered collection read.

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?

The filter list implies when the tool is useful (narrowing by customer, member, territory, status, time window), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over siblings like zenbooker_list_recurring_bookings or zenbooker_get_timeslots. Usage must be inferred from the parameter enumeration.

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