qrtap_list_bookings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses ordering (newest first), the returned fields, and an explicit PII constraint ('customers' names and phone numbers... do not copy it elsewhere'). It omits pagination/limits and any auth prerequisites, which keeps it just under a 5.

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 purpose and ordering are front-loaded, then filtering guidance, then the privacy caveat. Each sentence earns its place, though the PII sentence is somewhat verbose and could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly enumerates the return fields and the ordering, plus the PII handling rule. Pagination/result-size behavior is unstated, a minor gap for a list tool that could return many rows.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema's 'Omit to list every request' by explaining that 'new' represents the actionable inbox and that omission is the everything-view — useful decision semantics rather than a restatement.

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 booking requests left by guests on the organization's public pages') plus ordering ('newest first') and the fields surfaced. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling mutation qrtap_set_booking_status, so an agent can tell read-listing apart from status-writing without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says 'status=new is the inbox that still needs a decision — that is the usual call' and 'Omit status to see everything,' which gives the default and the broad-scan condition. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g., set_booking_status for acting on a request), but the when-to-use guidance is clear.

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