rigshare_list_my_bookings

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions authentication requirements (API key, scope) and the fields returned. However, it does not detail pagination behavior, default sorting, rate limits, or response size limits, leaving some gaps.

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 concise sentences that front-load the critical requirement (API key and scope). Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 should fully explain the response. It lists fields but omits details on pagination, default sorting, how to retrieve all bookings, or any example. The input schema defaults are present but not explained, leaving the tool contextually incomplete.

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?

Only 33% of schema parameters have descriptions (status has a description; limit and page lack any). The description does not add extra meaning to these parameters beyond their schema definitions, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 clearly states it returns the authenticated user's bookings with specific fields (equipment, dates, status, totals). It distinguishes from siblings like 'rigshare_create_booking' and 'rigshare_search_equipment' by focusing on listing existing bookings for the user.

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 description explicitly recommends using this tool to check existing rentals before creating a new one or to track a confirmation code. It also mentions the API key requirement and scope, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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