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

With readOnlyHint already provided, the description adds useful behavioral details: requires authorization, each booking has a status field, and pagination via limit/offset. These go beyond the annotation and help the agent understand response structure and constraints.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds meaningful information: sorting, status field, optional parameter, pagination defaults, and authorization. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers the essential return context (status field, sorted order) and parameter usage. It does not describe the exact response shape or error scenarios, but for a simple list operation with annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining provider_id as optional, limit default as 20, and offset as a pagination control. It does not detail the format or relationship of provider_id, but the key semantics are present.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('the user's past bookings at a network venue'), and adds sorting context ('by date, most recent first'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'list_current_bookings' and other booking actions.

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 context for when to use is clear: it is for past bookings, implicitly contrasting with 'list_current_bookings'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the past/current distinction in the title and description provides sufficient usage guidance.

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