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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the optional-filtering behavior, which the schema already conveys; it says nothing about return format, pagination, or result volume.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the optional filtering, with zero filler or redundancy.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter listing tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is the absence of any hint about result shape or pagination, which no output schema supplies.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of status and space filters mirrors the schema without adding format, allowed values, or semantic detail, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 space bookings') plus the domain scope ('for hosting equipment'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from generic space tools like get_space or search_spaces. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it differs from, so 4 rather than 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?

'Optionally filter by status or space' implies when the filters are useful but gives no when-to-use versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions relative to sibling listing tools. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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