Get Venue Bookings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one non-obvious trait beyond the schema: the response mixes two data sets (self bookings plus bookable infrastructure types), which an agent might not expect. However, it says nothing about read-only safety, authorization scope, or that results are paginated, and an output schema exists to document the return shape.

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 sentence with two clauses; nothing is padded and the core resource is front-loaded. The parenthetical brand name and the trailing 'plus' clause make it slightly denser than necessary, but there is no filler.

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 low-complexity, zero-required-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description supplies the essential scope (self, selected period) plus the secondary payload. Only the pagination/response-size caveat and the absence of annotations leave a minor gap.

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 the schema already documents page, size, and the period enum values. The description only echoes the period-window concept without adding syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema states. 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 a specific verb+resource combination ('My venue bookings (Book-a-Venue)') and clearly scopes it to 'self bookings in the selected period window,' which no sibling covers. It also discloses a second payload element ('infrastructure types a student may book direct'), which makes the resource slightly broader than the name implies. It is unambiguous, though it never names a sibling for disambiguation because none competes.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no alternative tool named or excluded. The phrase 'self bookings in the selected period window' implies scope, but an agent gets no signal about when this tool is the right call versus e.g. get_calendar_events or preview_outpass. Implied context only.

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