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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new context: the journal contains respondents' personal data and therefore requires the same permission as other results — an authorization prerequisite not derivable from the annotations.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the return payload is front-loaded, followed by the permission constraint. No filler, though it is quite terse for a personal-data-bearing 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing the returned fields and flagging the permission requirement. Combined with a fully-covered input schema and read-only annotations, this is close to complete, though it omits pagination/volume behavior for a period query.

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% and each of the three parameters is documented in the schema (UTC handling, workspace_id source). The description only restates the period concept, adding nothing beyond the schema, 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+resource ('Возвращает записи за период') and enumerates the returned fields (who booked, time, status, who cancelled and why), which distinguishes it from write-side siblings like update_booking or create_booking_block. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool, so it falls 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?

The description implies usage ('за период', requires the same permission as other results) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and never points to a sibling for a different need. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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