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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them — result ordering (newest first) and the presence of status and next_step fields — but says nothing about paging behavior or how far back 'recent' reaches.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the resource and scope with zero filler. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 simple read-only list with a full output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the definition covers the essentials — scope, ordering, key returned fields. Only minor gaps remain (pagination and the meaning of 'recent'), which the output schema partly absorbs.

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 only two parameters, so the schema already documents the limit default and the status enum. The description adds no filter syntax or semantics beyond what's in 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?

The description names a specific resource (bookings), scopes it (for this account), and states the sort order (newest first), so an agent immediately knows this is a broad collection read. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the sibling advertiser.bookings.get, which returns a single booking.

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: 'Recent bookings for this account' suggests a broad listing, which contrasts implicitly with advertiser.bookings.get, but the description never says when to prefer one over the other or note any exclusions. No prerequisites or pagination guidance is given.

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