Booking and safety rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds only 'grouped by category' as return-shape context and says nothing about the local-cache behavior that the `fresh` parameter implies, nor about the scope or cost of the call.

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?

One short fragment with zero waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise; there is no front-loaded verb or scope statement to orient the agent in the first few words.

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 must convey what comes back, and 'grouped by category' is the only hint. It never explains what a booking rule is, what the categories are, or whether results are paginated or business-wide, leaving an agent unable to predict the response.

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% and the single `fresh` parameter is described there as skipping the local cache, so the schema does the work. The description adds no further meaning about caching or freshness; 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 the resource (booking rules) and adds a structural hint (grouped by category), but it is a noun fragment with no verb, so it never says whether it reads, lists, or creates anything. A reader can infer retrieval from the annotations, not from the text, and nothing distinguishes it from adjacent business_* configuration tools.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling answers a related question. With business_no_show_protection and business_features among many adjacent config tools, routing is left entirely to inference.

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